Rural Delivery Review

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following their acceptance of the Lord Haskins's report, when they will announce in detail their changes to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Countryside Agency and English Nature; and whether these changes require primary legislation.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Secretary of State intends to publish a refreshed rural strategy for England in the spring, which will include a full response to the recommendations coming out of the Rural Delivery Review undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. The work being undertaken to develop that plan includes consideration of the detailed legal implications of the proposals, and changes to legislation will need to be addressed as part of the implementation plan.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that interesting reply. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of my interest in this matter. I am chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. Does the Minister agree that the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, are of considerable complexity and possibly of great opportunity? Given the reform in the common agricultural policy, will it be necessary for single-farm payments to be tied in with environmental targets? Will they be able to avoid the Byzantine bureaucracy which often requires farmers to have nerves of steel to fill in the application forms when asking for a grant or a subsidy? Is Defra up to such a complex task?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the time and care that we are taking to study the detailed recommendations—33 of them—is evidence of our commitment to ensure that implementation runs smoothly. I cannot but agree with the noble Lord's first statement about the importance of ensuring full integration of all aspects of Defra policy in this area in order to make sense of the remarkably sound and far-seeing work of my noble friend Lord Haskins.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the noble Baroness indicate whether the delay in the implementation of the Haskins report is due to its proposals to reduce the number of civil servants, or is there departmental resistance to the good recommendations in the report to give the administration of Defra services to the region where they will be more accessible to the public and to the farming community alike?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on the contrary, we are taking time because of the depth of the issues and the importance of ensuring that we tackle them all together and at the same time. At this stage the staffing implications cannot be known in detail. I share the support of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for the proposal that is fundamental to this review, which is that there must be greater co-ordination and, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, that we must ensure that we minimise bureaucracy. Farmers do not have time to deal with a myriad of different bureaucracies.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many people are controlled by rural affairs or the countryside? These days how many people who live in the countryside are rural?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it depends what one means by "rural". I have seen a reply to an article by Roger Skrewton which referred to the importance of someone who lives in a rural community eating pests that abound in the countryside. The follow-up letter asked what one did with the leftovers; for example, the Barbour jackets, the four-wheel drives and the green wellingtons. In such a complex area, I cannot possibly answer the noble Lord.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I can tempt the Minister to say whether she agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, who, when he gave evidence to the EFRA Select Committee on 17 December, said that,
	"if you cannot implement big chunks of my proposals you will not be able to deliver Curry and you will not be able to deliver CAP reform".
	While Defra dithers, does the Minister accept that the report was due to be out on 1 April? That date has passed, so how long will it be before the consultation concludes and how long will it be before the department puts those proposals into effect?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already started to deal with some of the recommendations in the report. I cannot possibly agree that we are dithering. Were the Secretary of State not to receive views from those most affected by some of the proposals, I am sure that there would be the opposite criticism from the Opposition Benches that we were not listening to stakeholders' views with regard to implementation. We shall act as speedily as we can, consequent on the need to ensure that we have sound policy judgment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that inevitably this will involve primary legislation?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, were the Government to decide to implement in full all the proposals contained in the report, the answer would be yes. The degree to which primary legislation is involved will depend on the detailed scrutiny of proposals affecting statutory agencies and some of their statutory duties; but that must await the outcome of consideration.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, lest my noble friend appears to be friendless on this side, could I ask her when she is deliberating the Haskins report not to become obsessed with the idea that the common agricultural policy reforms, as they are called, have gone anything like far enough? It is only a staging post to the present realm of reforms. What we really need to see is reform that shows significant changes in the common agricultural policy budget, so that we do not continue to spend approximately 50 per cent of the budget on such a wasteful process as that by comparison with all the other demands made upon it.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree with almost everything that my noble friend Lord Tomlinson has said, and bow to his even greater knowledge than that of most noble Lords, and especially my own, with regard to EU budgets. It may be a staging post, but it is one that is on a road which at long last is going in the right direction—that is, away from stimulating overproduction and into regard for the countryside and the environment. I know that all noble Lords share that aim.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the description given by the Minister is that the Government Front Bench may pretend to be rather picky and choosy about which recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, they will follow up and which they will not. Can she give us an assurance that at the end of the day at least the whole system will be more efficient, much more streamlined and less bureaucratic than it is at present?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, far from being picky, the Government wish to ensure that we achieve the objectives outlined by the noble Lord.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Lord Taverne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are satisfied with the economic and statistical work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are satisfied that the economic and statistical work of the IPCC is the most comprehensive assessment available. We note that it represents consensus between governments based on careful analysis.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that forecasts of global warming depend not only on scientific forecasts but on economic forecasts? Is the department aware that some extremely pertinent criticisms have been made of the special report and emissions scenarios by two very distinguished economists—Mr Ian Castles, the former head of Australia's Bureau of Statistics, and Mr David Henderson, the former head of the economic division of the OECD? They point out that the measure used—the market exchange rate—is quite inappropriate for measuring the difference between rich and poor countries: it exaggerates them. Some questionable assumptions are also made about the rate of closure of the gap between rich and poor nations.
	As that will affect policy and is very important in relation to future policy, will the Minister urge her colleagues at the Treasury to get involved in the process of economic forecasting? At the moment something is very wrong.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot agree with the basic premise of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. The result of the report and the views expressed by Mr Castles and Mr Henderson were considered extremely carefully both by the Government and by the IPCC. I note the noble Lord's view about the MEX form of analysis as opposed to PPP.
	The difficulty that everyone has is that we are inevitably in an imprecise area because we are looking at long-range forecasting over the next century. However, we owe it to future generations to ensure that we err on the side of caution. The noble Lord's reference to Castles and Henderson would lead us in the direction of perhaps being far too laid back in our attitude towards the future and of failing to take steps now with devastating environmental results.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, I realise that the Minister did not know that she was going to be answering this Question, but might it not be more sensible to lean in the direction of truth? Is she aware that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has put his finger on what is potentially a major scandal?
	Under the flawed proceedings of the IPCC even the lowest emissions scenario, which leads to the lowest extent of projected global warming, is based on a rate of growth of the developing countries in the coming century that is far faster than has ever been known. As a result, by the end of the century under its projections, the average income of Algerians, South Africans and North Koreans will be higher than that of the citizens of the United States. Is the noble Baroness really content that this very important matter on which major policy and public expenditure decisions have to be taken should be left to what is little more than an environmentalist closed shop that is unsullied by any acquaintance with economics, statistics or, indeed, economic history?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, never for a moment did I believe that one day I would challenge some of the assumptions of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. I cannot agree with him. Very careful consideration has been given to the methodology that is to be used. I think that the noble Lord is in error in some of the points he makes. It is extremely important to recognise that once, for example, Castles and Henderson complained about the methodology, they were given an opportunity to express their views. It is not a closed shop of environmentalists; it is people who are taking very seriously the future of the planet. One has only to look, for example, at the rate of growth in China to see that there could be grave errors in switching the methodology in the opposite direction.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned that the intergovernmental panel covered a whole century. Has it seen the latest from some scientists who have reported alarming change in the circulation of the Atlantic currents, which, from the sediments of the Antarctic that have been checked, means that global warming could create global freezing in a matter of a few decades rather than centuries? Any approach should surely be flexible to take those new factors into consideration. Has the intergovernmental panel done that, or is it still a little behind on the scientific facts?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is speaking in support of the Government's position. The implications of the rate of change to our planet are so serious that the Government are committed to continuing to be very cautious about listening to those of whom the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, spoke who say that we are taking the matter too seriously and assuming the worst. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is right in his assertion that we must look with a degree of alarm, be prepared and ensure that British industry and activity are in a position to benefit from low-carbon economies and related research, which will give them opportunities to help other countries.

Lord Desai: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that whether one takes one measure of GDP or another is very much a matter of taste? After all, nobody pays their bills in purchasing power parity; they pay it in real money, which is based on market exchange rates. Does she not also agree that there is no evidence that measuring income in purchasing power parity will have any different environmental impact from measuring it in market exchange currencies?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Desai is right; purchasing power parity is not necessarily a better method of assessing the environmental impact of growth rates. The other extremely important point about market exchange rate methodology is that data are available for much longer periods. When looking to development over the next century it is important that both methodologies are used, which is what the IPCC in its wisdom has opted to do.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the Government concerned about forecasts that the melting of ice near the poles will lead to flooding from the sea in low-lying coastal areas in various countries? Are they taking precautions where the United Kingdom is affected?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords, work is being done on the potential effects of environmental changes, including changes in water levels. The various government departments, particularly government agencies, are looking at the matter with care. The noble Lord will know that the response to an issue can be extremely sensitive, as a current issue in Devon is proving. It is extremely important that we look at such issues and do all that we can to mitigate any damaging effects, as well as seeking to tackle the causes, which is what lies behind the initial Question of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.

World War II 60th Anniversary Celebrations

Lord Mowbray and Stourton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will issue an invitation to King Michael of Romania to the 60th anniversary celebrations of the end of World War II in July 2005, in the light of the role which he played in bringing his country over to the allied side.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War will be commemorated on 10 July 2005, incorporating the anniversaries of the cessation of hostilities in Europe and the Far East. Planning is at an early stage, but it will be an occasion of reflection for all who were involved in the war. A broad spectrum of British and overseas guests will be invited to attend, including such eminent persons as His Majesty King Michael of Romania.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving the good news that at last there will be recognition of what King Michael has done. At the risk of pushing my luck, I wish to add that he did so well by us when he was 20, some 60 years ago; for instance, he managed to get all prisoners of war out of Romania. The Germans tried to hoist them back to Germany, but all that was stopped through King Michael. He was one of the few people who helped to destroy his own country—the oil wells—for the sake of the allies. I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that I am right in saying that the United States, France and Russia, even at the special request of Stalin, all specially decorated him with honours. I am grateful to the Minister, but I hope that some solid honour, other than just being asked to have a drink of tea, wine or whatever, will be conferred.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, has every right to push his luck. So far as I am aware, no new medals or honours are being issued for World War II service; however, that does not mean that we do not recognise King Michael's very positive wartime role.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, will the Normandy veterans be assisted with travel to France for the 60th anniversary celebration? I am sure that everyone would welcome such a move.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, around 8,000 veterans will travel to Normandy this June. There will be several means of assisting veterans taking part in the D-day celebrations. For instance, free one-year passports will be available to veterans who do not hold a valid passport; there will be a 50 per cent reduction in P&O ferry costs for veterans groups; and the New Opportunities Fund, a lottery distributor, will put aside £7.8 million to assist veterans and their families to take part in the commemorative celebrations.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minster aware that no Wren or civilian working at Bletchley Park was given any form of honour? Recently, at the request of some of the few survivors, I was asked to write to the Prime Minister about the matter. In a reply signed by the Prime Minister, stating, as the Minister said, that it was too late, he also said that "Mr Turning"—the name was spelt wrongly—who in many ways was more responsible for winning the war two years earlier, was awarded an OBE. Big deal, my Lords.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there will be no further honours or medals for service in the Second World War. Of course, code breakers and other organisations and individuals, who will be invited to the commemorative events on 10 July 2005, will be recognised through those invitations.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, does the Minister agree that despite the good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, there is no evidence that Her Majesty's Government—either this one or the previous—do not other than recognise what King Michael did, both in 1944 and 1947? When he promoted Romania's entry into NATO in 1997, for example, he was received by the Queen. The Government will not forget that he defended democracy and it is worth recognising that.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we are well aware of the enormous contribution that King Michael made to the successful outcome of World War II.

Gaza: Israeli Withdrawal

Baroness Williams of Crosby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they regard the Prime Minister of Israel's proposal for withdrawal from Gaza as falling within the terms of the road map.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that Prime Minister Sharon's proposals for withdrawal from Gaza are consistent with the road map, phase one of which calls on the Government of Israel to freeze settlement activity and dismantle outposts. The important point is that the proposals should form part of a peace process, not be an end in themselves, and not prejudice a final settlement. As phase three of the road map makes clear, the final status issues must remain a matter for the parties to negotiate.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I draw her attention to the fact that virtually every moderate Arab state has erupted in dismay at the decision by the President of the United States, with the support of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, to accept and endorse the proposal of Mr Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank without going through the negotiating process laid down in the road map. Is the Minister, whom I recognise is a great expert in this region, aware that even newspapers in Israel, such as Haaretz, have specifically condemned what has happened, and—I quote from Haaretz—referred to whether we want to,
	"realize the 'vision' of establishing the Hamas state",
	in Palestine? Will further settlement development in the West Bank now cease? Can the Minister say how, given the so-called facts on the ground, the present situation is to be brought back within the structure of the road map reasonably soon?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are going over some of the ground that we went over on Monday, when I urged your Lordships to give these proposals a chance to take forward the road map. What is proposed by the Prime Minister of Israel at the moment could conceivably go further than phase one of the road map. Phase one calls only for the freezing of settlement activity, and what is proposed here is that some settlements—those in Gaza and some on the West Bank—will be dismantled. We need to see further movement from the Israelis on the humanitarian issues that are in phase one of the road map, and, I hope, activity on the Palestinian side in relation to security. It is enormously important that we concentrate on the outcomes rather than the process at this stage, provided that it is consistent with the road map and does not prejudice the final status. What has been remarkable is the moderation of the reaction of a number of Arab countries to these proposals.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it would be more constructive to welcome the proposed withdrawal, to start making preparations for the well being of the Palestinians and to fill the vacuum by seeing that the public services on which they depend are provided by a proper authority instead of largely being provided by Hamas, as they are at present?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have welcomed these proposals, but we have done so in a specific and cautious way. We have done so provided that they are consistent with the road map. I urge your Lordships to bear in mind the caution that we have not seen the full detail of these proposals. There have been leaks in newspapers, but we have not seen an authentic version from the Israeli Government. While I agree with my noble friend that it is important, as the Prime Minister has said, that we see these as a step in relation to the road map and the opening up of its further phases, we are looking specifically at the proposals on Gaza and at consistency with the rest of the road map. My Answer to your Lordships was very careful. I very much look forward to seeing the detail of what is proposed on the ground.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister agree that crucial details need to be negotiated in advance of withdrawal from Gaza? I refer, for example, to the physical handover to the Palestinian Authority of the settlements and the facilities that go with them, to arrangements for policing and security in Gaza, to access by land from Gaza to the West Bank and Egypt, and to international access to Gaza airport.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord has said. That is why it is so important that we look carefully at the detail of what is proposed while giving these proposals a fair wind and backing them up as far as we are able to. I draw your Lordships' attention to the crucial element of the Gaza/Egyptian border, which is known as the Philadelphia road. How is peace to be secured there? The Israelis have said that they want to leave part of the Israeli defence forces undertaking those duties, but the security questions raised by the noble Lord are absolutely crucial. There have been some fairly unhelpful things said by Hamas, who have offered their services for security purposes. That is not a proposal that recommends itself either to the Palestinian Authority or to the Israeli Government.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we all hope that the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will somehow lead us back to the road map if the details to which the noble Baroness has been referring can be worked out. Ought not Ministers in their various gatherings to have put even more emphasis and attention on what Mr Sharon plans in the West Bank? Is it not the position that many people with Mr Sharon believe that withdrawing from Gaza somehow solidifies the settlements in the West Bank—not all of them, but many of them—and if that is the case, does that not threaten the whole prospect of a viable, separate, Palestinian state? That would take us right away from the road map for good.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord was not in the House on Monday when we discussed this, and I made precisely that point. I said that it is important to bear in mind that the eventual settlement must facilitate a contiguous, viable Palestinian state. It may be prejudiced if some of the settlements stay in ways that do not allow particularly that contiguity for a future Palestinian state.
	The noble Lord asks why Ministers have not tried a bit harder. To be frank, the noble Lord has not been in the room when these discussions have been going on. The fact is that Ministers from the United Kingdom Government have pressed these points over and over again, and we shall continue to do so. The noble Lord pulls a bit of a face about that, but I have been there, and I assure him that that is precisely what has been happening. We shall continue to do so.

Abuse of Elderly People

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as an employee of Age Concern England.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to address the issue of abuse of older people.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, since 1997, the Government have done a great deal to address poor practice and to tackle the wilful abuse of elderly people. More initiatives are planned.
	The Health Select Committee's recent inquiry into elder abuse is greatly welcomed. It draws public attention to an issue of great importance and confirms the Government's long-standing approach. Over the next few weeks, Ministers will carefully study the 40 recommendations made by the Select Committee, before issuing a formal reply.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The Health Select Committee has accepted evidence from the National Care Standards Commission and from my honourable friend Mr Burstow that over-prescription of anti-psychotic and neuroleptic drugs is happening to vulnerable older people in care homes. Will the department, as a matter of urgency, issue regulations covering the administration of medication to vulnerable people, so that that abuse will stop? Will elder abuse feature in any future review of the National Service Framework for Older People?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Select Committee referred to the Government's good practice in trying to restrain over-medication, which is something that we cannot tolerate. We would like to see it reduced, especially as it tends to become part of the culture of management, rather than being used to meet medical needs.
	The current situation is that people who are on medication and are taking four or more medicines have their situation reviewed every six months, as opposed to the annual review for other people. Those provisions are monitored by the strategic health authorities. The NSF will come under review over the next six months, and it is likely that the issue of medication will be examined. However, the National Care Standards Commission and CHAI inspect the issue of medication robustly and in connection with national standards. We anticipate that next May the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will produce guidelines on dementia care, including the use of anti-psychotic drugs. We are keeping the situation very much under review.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that people working with or caring for frail, elderly people need the support of trained staff, whether they work in the health service in the community or work in the community in social services? The number of health visitors who specialise in the field is virtually nil, and the number of trained social workers in the community is regrettably low. That situation cannot continue. If the help does not come early, we get terrible tragedies and abuses. What do the Government intend to do to remedy the situation?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right: the training and quality of staff are critical. One of the virtues of the definition of elder abuse that we have in our national minimum standards and guidance is that it ranges from casual indifference and neglect to physical harm. We care very much about the quality of training in care.
	There are two changes that will make a real difference. Fifty per cent of care staff must now be trained to NVQ level 2 by April 2005, with a minimum of three days' training on that particular issue. For the first time, we have set a target that 50 per cent of domiciliary staff delivering personal care in the home, where, as the noble Baroness will know, most abuse occurs—often perpetrated by family members—must be trained by April 2008. We have already said that we will review that target, so we are taking urgent action.

Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the importance of the Select Committee's recommendation that we need a robust body of research into the extent and prevalence of the abuse inflicted on older people? Will the department follow up that recommendation without delay? It is fundamental to a proper understanding of the problem.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we will consider that recommendation in the context of all the recommendations. It is an important recommendation, and there a few things that I want to say.
	First, we have provided considerable funding to Action on Elder Abuse—£400,000—for, inter alia, a specific project on data collection. The importance of that is that it will give us, for the first time, a chance to launch a national statistical collection, which can lead to performance indicators. That is an important step. Secondly, the guidance issued in 2001 requires local authorities, for the first time, to bring together information identifying and dealing with abuse. The important thing about that is that research is linked to observation and practice and is not simply an academic exercise. We know that the guidance works well; we are told that by the Centre for Policy on Ageing. We have a two-pronged approach. Thirdly, the Commission for Social Care Inspection generates information in its routine inspections. It is multi-disciplinary in intent and will help to fill in a complex picture.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, is not the root cause of the problem, in many cases, the inadequate fees paid by local authorities for the care of old people in residential homes? In turn, that knocks on into inadequate pay and training for the staff looking after our old people. Until we tackle that problem, nothing will happen.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the point about raising the standard of training for care staff, who do an incredibly important job in the domestic setting and in the care homes, is that it will attract people into the profession who will raise standards. Our approach to reducing and preventing abuse is to raise standards overall. That will make a significant difference to the quality of care.

Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the proportion of older people in our society is increasing steadily and has done so for some years? Many of those who are of advanced age are nevertheless capable of leading a normal life and should not be penalised in doing so.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, your Lordships' House is a good example of the productivity that comes with great age. We are approaching the concept of an ageing society much more positively. We are looking at and qualifying the notions of dependence and independence. The thrust of our policy is to keep people active, independent and healthy for as long as possible. That is why, for example, we are developing community care strategies, rather than putting old people into care at far too early an age. That is a positive policy.

North Korea

Lord Alton of Liverpool: rose to call attention to the security and human rights questions posed by the actions of the Government of North Korea; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, good fortune in the ballot enables me to place the Motion before your Lordships today. I will touch on security concerns, human rights, the treatment of refugees and the humanitarian crisis.
	Our last debate, on 13 March 2003, was overshadowed by North Korea's decision to reopen its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. Having expelled United Nations inspectors, reneged on its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, sought to enrich uranium, produced enough plutonium for half a dozen nuclear weapons, test-fired cruise missiles and developed intermediate range missiles, North Korea was rightly described by many of your Lordships as posing a serious threat to regional and world stability.
	Beyond the secrecy and speculation about North Korea's ability to design and fabricate nuclear weapons, it is in no doubt that North Korea has hundreds of Scud missiles available for export. Revealingly, Libyan sources have recently claimed that they had weapons links with Pyongyang. The No Dong missiles have a range of 1,300 kilometres, and the Taepo Dong 2 system could have a range of up to 10,000 kilometres. That arsenal and tangled spider's web has made the world deeply wary of North Korea and entrenched the isolation of what was always known as the hermit kingdom.
	The continuing six-party talks have not resolved those issues, but at least some of the sabre rattling and dangerous brinkmanship has been replaced by a desire to find a non-military solution. In parenthesis it might be worth adding that it is not unrealistic or fanciful to seek a Libyan outcome in North Korea. Engagement—though not appeasement—will unlock the door and remove one of the potential quartermasters of worldwide terror and allow economic and political reform to proceed. But is that a realistic approach?
	Following our previous debate, with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—who is currently visiting refugee camps on the Burma border and greatly regrets being unable to participate in the debate today—I had a frank exchange with North Korean diplomats. I asked whether we might travel to North Korea to raise our concerns directly. In September, that led to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I visiting Pyongyang. We met senior officials, including Kim Yong Nam, the president of the Presidium, and Choe Tae Boc, the Speaker of their Assembly.
	Outside Pyongyang, we went to Anju, 80 kilometres north of the capital and to the inaptly-named demilitarised zone at Panmunjom where, following the deaths of an estimated 2 million people during the Korean War, the 1953 armistice was signed. The Asian Wall that we saw at Panmunjom, which divides the two Koreas, deserves the same fate as the Berlin Wall that divided Europe.
	On our return to the United Kingdom we published a report. I am grateful to the Jubilee Campaign and Christian Solidarity Worldwide for facilitating our travel and the report. In Washington, we subsequently presented our findings to members of Congress and discussed our conclusion that engagement is possible with the Assistant Secretary of State, James Kelly.
	Last November, the All-Party Parliamentary British-North Korea Group, of which I am chairman, was created. In March, with the assistance of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, we welcomed Choe Tae Boc, North Korea's Speaker, who led the first such delegation to a western democracy. Detailed exchanges took place with Members of both Houses, including the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford, Lord Jopling, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, and my noble friend Lord Chan. Detailed discussions were held also at the Foreign Office with the Minister, Mr Bill Rammell. The delegation discussed religious liberties, at Lambeth Palace, with His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.
	It is therefore clear that I believe that hard-headed, Helsinki-style engagement is worthwhile. The Helsinki Final Act 1975 linked foreign policy to basic human rights principles. That measure recognised that increasing the pressure for human rights, in combination with a firm policy of military containment, could act as the catalyst for change.
	The history of the DPRK suggests that mere threats will be counterproductive, inducing paranoia, isolationism and the destabilisation of the region. Nor should we underestimate the deep patriotism of North Koreans, their memories of Japanese occupation or their fear of what they perceive as enemies at every gate. However, the regime knows that the status quo is not an option. The DPRK now needs a face-saving exit strategy.
	The alternative—that is, military engagement, possibly leading to nuclear conflagration—would be catastrophic for North and South Korea and their regional neighbours. During our discussions in Pyongyang, senior figures consistently stated their willingness to give up their nuclear programme and to accept a process of verification. They said that their conditions are a commitment to no first strike by either side and a pledge of peaceful coexistence. Surely nothing would be lost by testing the sincerity of that position.
	We concluded that a peaceful outcome is possible; that the DPRK is exhausted; and that for the world community the present crisis is an unwelcome distraction at a time of confrontation with radical Islamic terrorist groups. In our report we also detail numerous "small steps" that could be taken. For instance, the US should be encouraged to establish a diplomatic presence in Pyongyang.
	It was a concern about human rights that prompted our debate a year ago. These issues are not part of the six-party talks, but they are inextricably linked with the way in which North Korea is perceived in the West. Issues such as security have not gone away either. Last autumn, David Hawk produced a chilling report entitled The Hidden Gulag. In February, a BBC programme made disturbing claims about chemical weapons being tested on camp inmates. There are now concerns for the safety of Kang Pyong Sok, whose son gave damning evidence to the BBC.
	On 1 March, at a meeting in Warsaw with North Korean refugees, I heard harrowing accounts that make for sobering reading. Professor Leon Kieres told that conference that,
	"hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives in the camps",
	and estimated that,
	"about 150–200,000 prisoners are still being held in them".
	One defector and prison inmate who had earlier served as part of the presidential bodyguard, Lee Young-Kuk, graphically described the degrading situation in prison. This was his testimony:
	"From the very first day, the guards with their rifles beat me. I was trampled on mercilessly until my legs became swollen, my eardrums were shattered, and my teeth were all broken. They wouldn't allow us to sleep from 4 am till 10 pm and once while I was sleeping, they poured water over my head. Since the conditions within the prison were poor, my head became frostbitten from the bitter cold. As I was trying to recuperate from the previous mistreatment, they ordered me to stick out my shackled feet through a hole on my cell door, and then tortured them in almost every possible way. Not a single day passed without receiving some form of torture and agonizing experience".
	Forced repatriation to these prisons, in breach of China's obligations under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, has led to cruel treatment and even execution of repatriated refugees. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is denied unimpaired access, both in the DPRK and in China. Only last week, the Jubilee Campaign reported that the Chinese shot dead a North Korean attempting to enter Mongolia. Seventeen others were arrested. At the Warsaw Conference organised by the Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, Byyn Nanee described to me her treatment in China and how her brother was executed after repatriation.
	When the Minister replies, perhaps she could say whether welcome reports that China may be about to allow safe passage of refugees directly to South Korea have been confirmed and whether Her Majesty's Government have pursued China over its failure to co-operate with the UNHCR. The Government deserve our congratulations on the role they played last Thursday, at the 2004 meeting of the UNHCR in Geneva. They ensured the passage of a resolution which was supported by 29 countries and raised serious concerns about human rights violations. The resolution also calls for the appointment of a special rapporteur to monitor the situation in the DPRK—something for which many Members of your Lordships' House have been calling. Perhaps the Minister can say when she expects the special rapporteur will be appointed and what the terms of reference will be.
	Of course, North Korea disputes many of the accusations that have been laid at its door. However, its failure to allow independent inspection makes it impossible to separate fact from fiction.
	Many of your Lordships have rightly expressed concern about the treatment of religious minorities in the DPRK. On a positive note, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I were able to visit the Protestant church of Bongsu and the Catholic cathedral of Jangchong. The opening of a Protestant seminary at Bongsu is extremely welcome, as is the construction of an Orthodox church. However, no Catholic priest has been permitted in the country for more than 50 years and there are no diplomatic relations with the Holy See. At Anju, we were moved to learn from Mrs Kim, the mayor, of a Catholic church destroyed half a century ago in the ruins of which believers have continued until this day to meet weekly.
	Throughout our visit we persisted in raising cases such as that of the Rev Dong-shik Kim and that of Reverend Ahn Seung Woon—a South Korean pastor who was working in China when he was abducted by North Korean agents. Reverend Woon was shown on North Korean TV but has not been seen since 1995. Reverend Kim disappeared in January 2000 after assisting some North Korean refugees. To date we have not received a response from the DPRK about the fate of either of those clergymen, but those abductions, and those of several Japanese civilians, have soured relations and impeded political progress. If the DPRK truly wants an end to international isolation and, ultimately, reunification with South Korea, it will have to realise that that can come about only by the creation of more openness, more tolerance and an end to such violations.
	I turn finally to the humanitarian crisis in North Korea. United Nations officials told the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and myself that there is "an unlimited need" for healthcare. They said that following food shortages and famine—an estimated 2 million people have died in North Korea over the past decade—
	"there are not many elderly people left in the DPRK".
	They said that in the north-east, on the border with China, orphaned children whose parents had died in the famine were living on the streets—"street swallows" as young as seven years old.
	DPRK officials told us that their daily food target per person is just 600 grams of rice. They manage to provide a meagre 350-400 grams each day per person. Food should never be used as a weapon of war. The World Food Programme says that, by and large, food is reaching those for whom it is intended. To those especially in the United States who have been arguing that humanitarian aid in the form of food should be withdrawn, I say that that would be the wrong approach. Surely we can welcome the presence of about 50 independent monitors now assessing food delivery. If we do not tackle the humanitarian crisis and ensure the flow of food, the flow of migrants and refugees from the country certainly will not be abated.
	Emergency aid should be complemented by development aid. A priority should be small, micro projects such as the water irrigation and purification programme established by the Irish aid agency, Concern, that we saw at Anju, and which has dramatically improved rice yields.
	The DPRK has specifically asked that students should come to the United Kingdom, and I welcome the links that are being developed with Cambridge University. The British Council should open an office in Pyongyang and meet the huge demand for English as a foreign language, which could form an important part of a small steps strategy. It also strikes me that we are brandishing a great many sticks when some carrots might be equally well deployed.
	Economic initiatives such as the proposed railway to link the north and the south should be expedited, and passenger transport as well as cargo should be encouraged. This would inspire confidence as well as family reunification and social cohesion.
	As their Speaker's delegation learnt during a visit to Cambridge Science Park, there are huge opportunities for economic development and co-operation between Britain and North Korea. But all this is impeded by the stalemate over security and human rights concerns. Investors and non-governmental organisations are wary of an uncertain future. Surely many more would come if those key questions were resolved.
	This has been a brief summary of the security, human rights, refugee and humanitarian issues facing North Korea. As Speaker Choe Tae Boc was leaving the recent meeting in the IPU Room here at Westminster, a South Korean student approached him. She told him that he was the first North Korean that she had ever met. Rather movingly, he told her, "You are my daughter". Sometimes human encounter underlines the consequence of painful divisions. At Panmunjom, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and I remarked that more of our political energies should be deployed in building bridges rather than walls.
	North Korea is often described as "the land that never changes". Yet, the president of its Presidium, Kim Yong Nam, told us—I use his words—that,
	"change can take place more quickly than we might have thought possible".
	It is my strong belief that we should encourage that spirit and use the not inconsiderable expertise and influence of our own country to help North Korea to make a peaceful transition. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, once again this House has reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for providing noble Lords with the opportunity to debate the situation in North Korea. I should like also to thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for the final report of the delegation visit made last September to North Korea, which is well worth reading. In addition, I should like to place on the record my thanks to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for making possible the recent visit and meeting that took place here in Westminster with Mr Choe Thae Boc, chairman of what I understand is the Supreme People's Assembly. In my view, that meeting was both useful and cordial, showing a way to achieve proper discussion about some of the matters that concern us here. They were debated openly and face to face.
	I want to concentrate on one particular aspect of the human rights abuses in North Korea; namely, the fate of North Korean defectors who escape into China, but who are then repatriated. Obviously the fact that the Chinese Government seem happy to repatriate them to face an uncertain future in their own country is very worrying, but that issue belongs to another debate for another day. This debate seeks to concentrate on North Korea and I want to focus on the fate of such people once they are repatriated to their home country.
	The NGO, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, has interviewed many survivors from North Korea. From these testimonies and from other accounts, it is clear that people who escape from the brutal regime in North Korea, but who are then caught and sent back, suffer very severely. All are interrogated, most are beaten and tortured, and some are executed.
	I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will share my concern about the case of Mr Kang Byong-sop. He is the source of the documents on chemical experimentation on political prisoners which were featured on the BBC film, "Access to Evil", shown in February this year. In September 2003, Mr Kang, his wife and his younger son managed to escape from North Korea into China. However, when on 3 January this year they attempted to flee into Laos, they were caught by Chinese border guards.
	Since China has a very dishonourable record of sending captured North Korean refugees back to North Korea, it was immediately apparent to human rights groups that Mr Kang was in great danger. Sure enough, he appears to have been handed back to the North Korean Government at some point before the end of March. He has subsequently appeared at what seems to have been a stage-managed press conference in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang, along with his family. Human rights representatives now fear for their safety. I therefore urge Her Majesty's Government to make strong representations to the North Korean authorities with regard to this particular case. It is clear, imperative, urgent and understandable. In their own way, our Government could make some difference to this case.
	I should like to bring before noble Lords another case, that of the family of Lee Young Kuk. Mr Lee was a bodyguard to the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. However, he became disillusioned with life in the dictatorship and, in 1994, he escaped to China. He was captured by the North Koreans through a deliberate ruse and taken back to North Korea after having been bound and drugged. What happened to him once back in North Korea is a salutary reminder of the sort of fate that awaits repatriated North Koreans.
	He was held in Pyongyang for six months in an underground detention cell by the bo-wi-bu police from the National Security Agency. He was subjected to kneeling torture by being made to kneel motionless for hours at a time, not even turning his head. He was also subjected to water torture, being held down by five or six agents who poured water into his mouth and nose until he gagged and almost suffocated. He was also severely beaten on the shins, eyes, ears, head and mouth. Six of his teeth and one of his eardrums were broken. Years later, he still suffers from double vision in his left eye and his shins remain damaged.
	Mr Lee believes that his torture was intended solely as a punishment for having fled to China. There was certainly no further information for the North Korean police to beat out of him as he had openly criticised the North Korean regime when he was in Beijing. At the time he thought that he was talking to a South Korean diplomat, although his confidante turned out to be a North Korean.
	Mr Lee was then sent to a labour camp where he quarried stones for 14 hours a day for four years. Eventually he was released, and in 1999 he escaped once again into China and, finally, into South Korea.
	One of the particularly insidious aspects of the regime in North Korea is that it implements a policy of guilt by association, under which relatives are punished, often harshly, for the supposed misdemeanours of individuals. Mr Lee is therefore very worried about his family members still in North Korea, in particular his mother, Park San-Ok, his 13 year-old son, Ri Sung-kwang and 12 year-old daughter, Ri Sun-kyung, and his four sisters, Ri Geum-soon, Ri Kyng-hee, Ri Bok-hee and Ri Sung-hee. Through the NGO, Mr Lee has asked specifically for the British Government to make representations on their behalf and I hope that, if I pass on the details to my noble friend on the Front Bench, she will take this forward.
	Concerns about the policy of forced repatriation are referred to in the excellent report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, after their visits. It is well worth reading. It states:
	"We also know of the harsh consequences for anyone repatriated to North Korea who has attempted to go to a third country. Those consequences include execution".
	After setting out a list of people, they detail the way that refugees, especially those coming through from the humanitarian aid agencies, have been treated.
	Even as we speak, there are other North Korean refugees in China who are also in danger of being repatriated. One of these is Mr Park Young-chol, whose alias is Jo Yong-su. Mr Park was arrested on 18 January 2003 after being involved in helping the attempted escape of North Korean refugees from China by boat. On 22 May 2003, a court in Yantai in Shantung Province sentenced Mr Park and four others to terms of imprisonment. Mr Park received a sentence of two years' imprisonment and a fine of 5,000 RMB.
	Mr Park is currently in Wei Fang prison, but it appears that he may now be released on 1 May. He has expressed his absolute terror as the release date approaches. He believes that he will be repatriated to North Korea, which he describes as a "death sentence". Indeed, accounts of the treatment of those who have been repatriated would support his assessment. As I alluded to earlier, many who have returned with much lesser offences chalked up against them have been subjected to horrific torture and execution.
	The Government have done wonderful things—as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, we should recognise that they have tried very hard—but I would implore them to continue to put human rights at the heart of their stated foreign policy. The North Koreans must be left in no doubt that if they want to be accepted into the world community they must stop this inhuman treatment of refugees who are forcibly repatriated.
	I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, once again, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool on securing this important debate regarding a country that causes grave concern for global peace and security.
	As secretary of the British-North Korean All-Party Parliamentary Group, I particularly welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate—all the more so, as my noble friend said, as it was only in mid-March that a delegation of North Koreans, led by the Chairman of the Supreme People's Assembly, Mr Chae Thae Bok, visited the United Kingdom. It was a tremendous opportunity to open the eyes of the parliamentarians of the DPRK Parliament—which meets for only two days a year—to the workings of our parliamentary system. It was also an opportunity for them to understand our concern about certain issues in their country.
	Earlier this month I was in Geneva for a meeting of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights, at which I chaired a session. I welcome the commission's decision to appoint a special rapporteur on human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Having voted in favour of the resolution, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government also welcome this appointment.
	In view of the reports from my noble friend Lord Alton and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, I hope that the special rapporteur will be able to pay close attention to the conditions in North Korean prisons. I hope that in her response to the debate the Minister will tell the House that Her Majesty's Government will be offering support to the special rapporteur and his staff to gain access to North Korean prisons in order to assess humanitarian needs, to conduct interviews with inmates and to hold meetings with prison authorities.
	The United Nations resolution also requests that the special rapporteur should seek credible reports on human rights from all relevant people inside and outside North Korea. These, of course, will include defectors who are now living outside the DPRK. Given that some of the most serious reports recently emerging from North Korea concern the lethal testing of chemical weapons on human beings, I look forward to Her Majesty's Government giving support to the special rapporteur and his staff to investigate these reports fully and to gain access to sites within North Korea where tests are alleged to have occurred or are occurring.
	As regards the issue of North Korean refugees in China, because of what has been said so far I shall focus on only one incident. Only last week I was asked to bring to the attention of Her Majesty's Government the case of Mr Park Yong-choi, also known as Jo Yong-su, a North Korean who was arrested and sentenced in China but now faces repatriation and likely execution in his home country. Mr Park was arrested on 18 January 2003 in connection with the attempted escape of North Korean refugees by boat. On 22 May last year, a court in Yantai, in Shantung Province, China, sentenced him and four others to terms of imprisonment. Mr Park received a sentence of two years' imprisonment and a fine of 5,000 Chinese yuan.
	It appears that Mr Park may now be released on 1 May. He has expressed his absolute terror at the approach of his release date because he believes that he will be repatriated to North Korea to face torture and then execution. Mr Park is now in Wei Fang prison, some five hours' drive from Yantai airport in Shantung Province in north China.
	His co-defendant, Mr Choi Yong-hun, was also transferred to Wei Fang prison in mid-January this year. Choi is a South Korean sentenced to five years' imprisonment. His case has received some attention in South Korea. As a result he has been able to send letters to his family. In a recent letter to his wife, Choi mentioned Mr Park's possible release on 1 May and asked for intervention on Park's behalf. Choi states that the thought of what may happen to Park in North Korea torments him so badly that he sometimes contemplates suicide.
	According to the reply to a Written Question that I put to the Minister, some 20,000 Chinese students have entered the United Kingdom to enrol in further and higher education. Given the better and improving relations between Britain and the People's Republic of China, I call upon Her Majesty's Government to enter into discussions with the Chinese Government about the situation of North Korean refugees in China.
	I am well aware that the Chinese Government turn a blind eye to the torture of religious minorities in China. The case of the abducted pastors was referred to by my noble friend Lord Alton. I ask only whether Her Majesty's Government will continue to inquire of the DPRK what has happened to the two ministers of religion—the Reverend Ahn Seung Woon and the Reverend Kim Dong Shik—both of whom have disappeared without a trace over the past few years.
	I hope that the Government will take up this difficult issue with a country which has only recently been open enough to allow a delegation to visit here and one party of British parliamentarians to visit North Korea. From what I heard when I was around the table with Mr Chae, he believes that the United Kingdom is the best friend of the North Koreans in the West. I heard a similar statement made by Mr Hu Jintao when he was Vice-President of China and visited Britain three years ago. Given the great hope and statements made about the reputation of the United Kingdom Government, I have no doubt that they can intervene successfully.

The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on his dedication and particularly his persistence in bringing the situation in North Korea to your Lordships' House, including the appalling details which we have heard. I also applaud his commitment to engagement and to his "small step strategy".
	Despite the huge development in the mass media, it seems that human beings cannot take in a very wide canvas. Consequently, the current focus on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the so-called war on terror diverts attention from other places of acute suffering. At the same time, such regimes as that in North Korea are acutely conscious—paranoid may not be too strong a word—about the perceived attitudes of other countries towards them and, in the case of North Korea, particularly the perceived attitude of the United States.
	When I contacted Canon John Peterson, the Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion this week about his last visit to the Korean peninsula, he said that the National Council of Churches in Korea was very eager for him to go to North Korea and felt that an initiative from the Anglican Communion would have been helpful, particularly in relation to justice and peace issues. However, the visit was not to be. The barrier was possibly because of the timing, which was shortly after Mr Bush's famous "axis of evil" pronouncements in his State of the Union address. The National Council of Churches in Korea was hoping that a visit from the Anglican Communion might have dispelled some of the fear that resulted from that speech. But the same fear denied the opportunity for a visit.
	As with so many severely repressive regimes, fear plays a major part, not just in terms of what the regime inflicts on its people but also in what motivates the regime in feeding its insularity and, at times, its paranoia. It is because of this that the visit of the parliamentary delegation to North Korea in September of last year was so important. It may have achieved even more than it realised.
	Nothing can replace the meeting of human beings with each other, and I think the delegation should be congratulated on its determination not to shy away from critical questions, as well as its ability to identify ways in which practical help can be given. It has been able to come back and tell a real story at first hand. Much of that story is totally shocking, as we have heard this afternoon, but much of it is also hugely hopeful. It is especially encouraging to read about and hear about the brave and courageous people who have worked for justice and peace over many years, especially the martyrs—many thousands of them—who have died for their faith and beliefs and in the service of the Korean people.
	In the debate of March of last year in your Lordships' House, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said that she hoped that our own Churches would give greater recognition than has been given so far to the martyrs of Korea. I hope that our Churches will take that plea to heart. The stories need to be told and retold, not just to honour those who have died but to give hope to those who currently suffer so that they know that their history as well as their suffering is acknowledged and celebrated.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, a return delegation from North Korea came to this country last month and was able to meet with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He presented members of the delegation with, among other things, Bibles in their own language. Something of the response of the delegation can be gauged from its invitation to the most reverend Primate to visit North Korea. These are hopeful steps.
	Another step would be the reopening of an American embassy in North Korea. Even during the Cold War, the United States retained their diplomatic presence in other countries. Such a presence in North Korea could be an important means of progress at this time and might promote more understanding and less fear.
	In focusing on hopeful ways forward, we should not lose sight of the situation on the ground for very many in North Korea who suffer acutely. Repatriation from China, as has been mentioned—and, last week, even repatriation from South Korea—means an almost certain threat of death.
	I am sure that our thoughts and prayers are with those who suffer and die in North Korea, but also with those who work so courageously for justice and change, including members of our own government.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, we last debated this subject just over a year ago, thanks to my noble friend Lord Alton, to whom we are again indebted. I am not clear, however, whether there has been real progress since then, among either the neo-Stalinists of North Korea or the neo-conservatives of Washington. I therefore invite the Minister to say whether, in her view, some real detente has occurred, whether there has been any progress on missiles and nuclear weapons or, indeed, on the equally important subject of the control of export of small arms. Has the persecution and discrimination against religious believers in North Korea eased at all?
	A year ago, we spoke about the need for multilateral dialogue. The Minister said then that she was in touch with British and international NGOs. Have they, in fact, been drawn into the conversations with the North Korean Government? Surely this is wholly desirable, since perhaps they could make some headway where governments may not yet have access.
	I quoted the Statement on Principles for US and North Korean Relations drawn up by a distinguished group of American citizens in January 2003. Has anything come of that, I wonder? It seems to have strong affinities with the Helsinki process of the 1970s and 1980s. Have the Government discussed this statement with the United States?
	I should now like to look in rather more detail at the situation of refugees and others leaving North Korea. The combination of food shortages and famines with harsh political and religious persecution have forced many people to flee. Some seek temporary respite, others permanent refuge. Because it is very difficult to cross the demilitarised zone into South Korea or to escape by sea, most fugitives go to China. There, if found, they are automatically treated as illegal economic migrants. Some are fined and/or imprisoned for one to two years. All, sooner or later, are sent back to North Korea where, as has been said, they face torture, forced labour and possibly death. The best estimate seems to be that up to 300 people per week are being sent back by China to North Korea without—and this is the important point—any determination of their status.
	My noble friend Lord Alton and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised this matter by letter with the Department of Foreign Affairs in Beijing last September. So far, they have had no reply, although they submitted the names and details of more than 100 persons either sent back or still held in China.
	I would like to raise the case of the Reverend Ahn Seung Woon, already mentioned by my noble friend. Nothing is known about the fate of this man in North Korea following his abduction. His wife, three children and four grandchildren are obviously deeply concerned. Will the Government discuss this case with the North Korean Government? Will they also raise with China the cases of two aid workers, one clergyman and one journalist, all from South Korea, arrested in January 2003 in connection with the Yantai boat people? Their names are known and have been or will be submitted to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
	The arrest and sentencing of the journalist is thought to breach China's obligations under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Her Majesty's Government might well point out in connection with this that Japanese citizens arrested in China for communicating with or helping North Korean refugees have generally been released after a mere three weeks' detention.
	Wider issues of international obligations also arise. China has ratified the 1951 convention on the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol. In addition, it signed a bilateral treaty on 1 December 1995 with the UNHCR providing unimpeded access to refugees within China. The Chinese Government are in clear breach of their obligations, because they consistently fail to determine the status of North Koreans found on their territory. Will the Government therefore raise this matter on all possible occasions bilaterally in their human rights dialogue with China and in the United Nations at other international circles?
	Your Lordships should note the extreme paradox whereby China co-operates fully with the UNHCR over some 300,000 refugees from Vietnam in southern China, but refuses any protection—whether by its own activities or through the High Commissioner—to a further estimated 300,000 North Koreans also in China. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination formally recorded that fact in August 2001. This is yet another reason why the European Union should not lift its embargo on the export to China of weapons and military equipment. There can be no doubt that China's refusal to accept its obligations is systematic and stems from the highest levels of decision making. The evidence for that lies in the arrest, sentencing and refoulement of North Koreans, not only in the border areas, but also on the frontiers of Mongolia and Vietnam, in Shanghai and Beijing, notably at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and at other foreign embassies.
	I wish her Majesty's Government every possible success in their efforts to bring the Chinese to a better and more co-operative frame of mind. Of course, that may take time. In the interim, however, there is another possibility for providing a safety valve for North Korea's internal problems. Russia has acknowledged that its far eastern provinces in the Pacific regions of Siberia are seriously underpopulated. They lack sufficient young people and key workers in certain industries, particularly as oil and gas production expand. Therefore, will the Government explore, perhaps in conjunction with the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration, whether Russia would agree to accept some of those who wish to leave North Korea? That could make a real contribution to detente and might reduce the prison and labour camp population quite considerably. In any such discussions it will be essential to uphold the principle of family unity.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for sponsoring this debate and welcome the immensely valuable work that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others have been doing to try to build some personal links with this immensely difficult closed society. Everything that can be done to begin to give the authorities and the people of North Korea easier relations with the rest of the world and break down the barriers of fear, ignorance and insecurity that dominate their society is to be welcomed, and we appreciate how difficult that is.
	A great deal has been said about the human rights situation there, about particular cases of human rights and about the problem of the Chinese treatment of refugees and economic migrants. I will focus on the regime itself and the possibilities of transition because, after all, the best way to improve the human rights situation in the long run is for North Korea to go through a relatively peaceful transition.
	The most interesting and valuable phrase in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was his reference to the possibility of a Libyan outcome. If we can move in that direction slowly, there is some hope. After all, by any criteria, North Korea comes closest to the classic definition of a rogue state. I have always been very unhappy with the use of the term "rogue state". However, a state that is so closed off from the outside world, that makes its money by exporting missile technology, does its best to threaten its neighbours and, in effect, therefore lives by attempted blackmail of its neighbours, is a rogue state by any means.
	We are aware of the evidence that the North Koreans have been extensive exporters of missile technology. They have a nuclear programme, although the degree of development of that nuclear programme is contested. The Americans are convinced that it is fully developed, but those who have done their best to explore quite how far they have got with the plutonium process are not necessarily as convinced as the Bush administration claims to be. There have been allegations of heroin smuggling, and there are explicit threats to South Korea. There are immense problems.
	North Korea is one of the relics of the Cold War, the only one that has not yet begun to change. Change might include confrontation and a move towards a military crisis that could include a break into conflict. I was in Seoul recently and was very conscious of how close it is to the border. For anyone in South Korea, the possibility of military conflict is a catastrophic alternative.
	The second possible outcome is regime collapse. Clearly, the regime has come quite close to collapse over the past 10 years, especially during the famine. The third possible outcome, which we must try to promote if we can, would be some sort of relatively peaceful transition. The briefing that I read before this debate suggests that there are some signs of reform. They are very small, but at least they are better than we have seen over the past 15 to 20 years. There are suggestions that the economy, with some assistance from South Korean companies and others, is beginning to benefit from a relaxation of the old state socialist script and, clearly, as with the visit by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, there is some greater degree of outside contact, with at least a half-opening towards Japan and elsewhere.
	The South Korean approach, reinforced by the recent elections in South Korea that were an overwhelming victory for its current Prime Minister, is one that we should wish to promote as far as we can. We must recognise that the South Koreans are not interested in rapid unification. The sheer cost of that, especially on the German example, puts them off. Dialogue, engagement and an attempt to rebuild links between the two halves of Korea is very much the way in which they want to move forward.
	To most of us, I suspect, the attitude of the Bush administration at present seems unhelpful. The hostile rhetoric of the Bush administration only reinforces the hardliners in North Korea who wish to resist change. The declaration of enmity makes it easier for them to argue that the world is hostile and that one should therefore resist contacts. The sense that one has from Vice-President Cheney and others is that—with reference to the quote from a former US President who warned against American foreign policy going out to the world to find monsters to destroy—there are those in the Pentagon who want to find monsters and set about destroying them. That would clearly risk disaster for the whole of the Far East.
	The way forward must, I suggest, be multilateral—most of all through the six-party talks. In that respect, we must recognise that China is a very important player; it is unsatisfactory in human rights terms and in all sorts of other ways, but it is the outside state with the most influence in North Korea. It is therefore one alongside which we must operate as far as we can, even while recognising that the Chinese attitude towards North Korean refugees is unhelpful.
	I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the role of Russia. That country may play a useful role; after all, a significant Korean diaspora exists in Russia—and, incidentally, in Ukraine, Belarus and other countries—which may be of some assistance in helping a transition within North Korea. Russia thus has a legitimate role to play. As it is going through a period of transition from socialism to at least some form of semi-market economy and semi-democracy, it may have some useful role to play. So, too, does Japan. It is deeply unsatisfactory that the half-opening of the question of those who have been kidnapped has left a great deal of bitterness in Japan, but it has influence and leverage. The six-party talks must be the way forward.
	The British response must be partly to recognise that we are only a secondary or tertiary player in this game and that our influence is best exerted through multilateral channels—the European Union, the UN and the Asia-Europe dialogue. After all, there will be an ASEM meeting later this year. Our influence may come through such areas as the UN Committee on Human Rights. There was an EU delegation visit to North Korea some months ago. There is a useful means of influence through the Europe-China dialogue and the UN is doing a certain amount that is very helpful in this regard.
	As it happens, I know Masood Hyder, as he used to work for the British Government and my wife was his boss at the time, some 25 years ago. He has an extremely difficult job in North Korea, trying to maintain food aid and a positive role for the UN from the outside. We welcome what the United Kingdom Government have been doing in terms of support for food aid and humanitarian assistance. We hope that the Minister will tell us what more the British Government believe that we can do in that regard, recognising that there is a limit to what we can do on our own. We hope that we are promoting as much multilateral co-operation in this regard as possible.
	When one thinks back to the speech that President Bush made about the axis of evil and the labels of rogue states, one can see some movement. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, Libya appears to be moving back towards the international community. Iran, in spite of continued hostility from the United States, appears to be playing a relatively positive role in Iraq. Iraq itself, sadly, is now in deep crisis. We have failed so far to rebuild the state after the invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. Syria is still a problem for all of us. Again, European and American attitudes to how we bring Syria back into the international community have diverged painfully in many ways.
	Then we have North Korea, on which European governments can only work with those in the region and, as far as we can, in influencing American policy, to assist towards a greater opening and a peaceful transition. The aim must be gradually but eventually fully to bring North Korea, as with these other states, back into the international community.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are indeed indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for promoting this debate. He has not only issued some fascinating reports and conducted visits with my noble friend Lady Cox to Pyong Yang, but maintained a vigorous after-sale service in arranging meetings here between visiting delegations of the DPRK and members of this House, and meetings with the DPRK ambassador. That forms an important part of the weave of dialogue, connections and contact, which must in turn be part of the longer term solution for this unhappy country in its unhappy position.
	Last year, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who cannot be with us today, remarked that the UK had a relatively limited role in unravelling the North Korean problem. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who has enormous expertise in foreign affairs, said much the same thing. It is true that we are not in the front line of the six-party talks, as we are not one of the six parties. However, the reality is different.
	In this age of the globalised network system, we are now living right next door to each other, and any threat anywhere in the network is a threat and danger to us immediately and directly here at home. That is the change from the past eras of international disorder. There is now no country on earth that is so far away that we can afford anything but the utmost vigilance. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly said, however distant the origin of the problem seems to be, we must be ready to make a full contribution of ideas, skills and expertise to the resolution of problems that threaten aggressively to destabilise the global network, leading to a whole chain of consequences and to intimate and immediate horrors.
	We have learnt, for instance, from the revelations of Dr Kahn's activities in Pakistan and from the Libyans in their new revelatory mood, just how intimate and interwoven the networks are that carry the sinister trade in nuclear weapons information and components, and other contributory components to weapons of mass destruction. I refer, too, to weapons of singular destruction—in other words, weapons which, when placed in the hands of even quite small terrorist organisations, can still inflict the most fearful damage on all our societies.
	When the Prime Minister had his recent discussion with Mr Gaddafi and set up the consequent talks, with which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has been involved— as she has been with other important Middle East and Maghreb developments—I hope that further discussion was encouraged on the network trade of the nuclear components and other dangerous products. I hope that we will learn a lot more about those matters as a result of the more open relationship which, it is to be hoped, we will have with Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyans.
	The problem with North Korea is, in a way, even more serious than that. It is a nation that first signed and then flouted the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That threatens us all directly. It threatens us just as much as does the irresponsible export of weapons for terrorist use or abuse or any kind of terrorist attack on Asian cities or other metropolises, however remote—it all comes straight back to our own front doorstep. I accept that the NPT is not the best regime; in fact, it needs obvious revision, but it is all that we have. If the underlying discipline of that goes, or is allowed to slip away by turning blind eyes to what the North Koreans have done deliberately, we really are all slipping into a new dark age.
	As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked in the debate last year, to which there have been several references—that debate was also promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Alton—what do we do now? Do we just make speeches at each other or is there a set of priorities that we can keep in front of us as we proceed in this very dangerous area? The first thing we do is what we are doing now, and what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, does all the time, which is keep up the human rights pressure. Steady and unremitting pressure and criticism, well informed and focused, about human rights abuses in a country such as North Korea are not, as some cynics say, just words and useless, well meaning utterances; pressure does pay off. We must never forget—I am sure that no one among your Lordships will ever forget—what the Helsinki process did to undermine eventually the confidence of the old Soviet regime and open the reform floodgates; indeed, with the result that the flood itself then swept away everything, reforms and all, and finally removed the whole odious apparatus of communist rule. It took a long time. At the time people said that it was hopeless but it worked, if only by the drip-drip process, to undermine the entire structure. That continues and all energies must be mobilised in this area as much as in other areas of international crisis which we now face.
	Secondly—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—we should avoid some of the Messianic language coming out of Washington about axes of evil. In the past few days I have read some extraordinary things in the Herald Tribune, that have emerged at a high level in Washington, about America's God-given mission to sell freedom or whatever to every country on earth. I can understand the motivations but the whole tone, and the almost unthinking impulses which one fears lie behind that kind of tone, will not help to unravel and unpick the situation. It is precisely that kind of language that frightens the South Koreans who, after all, are only a missile's throw away from North Korea, and I am afraid has led to a remarkable degree of anti-American sentiment being uttered in Seoul, which is extraordinary when you think how over the years America has helped to safeguard the freedoms of the South Koreans. That is not the right way to proceed. If only we could in the delicate world of diplomacy somehow calm down some of our American friends' enthusiasms and concerns, we would all make a lot more progress.
	I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, when he made an analogy with the Berlin Wall situation. I do not make that analogy. I do not think that the situation we are discussing is at all comparable with the East German situation where, if your Lordships remember, it was the East Germans themselves who broke through the wall surrounding them in order to escape from and, indeed, bring down their regime, which they did with amazing rapidity. I do not know whether that will happen in North Korea. Frankly, I do not think that it will, and I do not think that is the way that matters will proceed. If I may take issue slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, nor do I see the prospect of what he calls a "Libyan outcome". If a Libyan outcome means leaving in place the same old dictatorship and the same old regime but just putting on new clothes for the afternoon, as it were, we should be very suspicious, careful and cautious about that. However, I leave those matters there.
	Thirdly, we must accept that China is really the key to the whole jigsaw. We may not want to accept it but it is. As your Lordships know, Kim Jong II visited China over the weekend. According to the Xinhua News Agency, he now says that he wants to resume the six-party talks, which I suppose is welcome. I think that it is welcome even though it is difficult to see progress until North Korea takes definite, positive steps to start closing down its plutonium reactor programme and its highly enriched uranium facilities. In trying to round up where we go on all this, we have to ask what China really needs and what will motivate it to use its undoubted strength and leverage to ensure that North Korea ends its era of threats, missiles over Japan, flouting of treaties and so on and begins to behave in a more responsible way.
	Obviously, the first thing that China wants is not to have a hornet's nest on its doorstep. Things are very different from half a century ago at the time of the Korean War. The Chinese economy today is roaring ahead, some say much too fast, it may have to cool down a little, but in doing so it is transforming at least a large section of Chinese life and making the People's Republic of China a more and more significant player—in fact, a decisive player—in the global pattern of things. So, the Chinese interest today is in world stability, which means trading and financial stability and political stability, and it is growing all the time.
	There are exceptions. The concern about Taiwan taking an independent course overrides even those concerns of the Chinese Government that I have mentioned, and the same goes for Tibet. There they seem to depart from the logical interests and prosperity of their own country and put these territorial issues above everything. I hope that that will not prove to be their attitude in relation to Hong Kong as well, where steps have been taken which make many people there extremely uneasy about whether the two-nations solution is going to be allowed to exist. I believe that a Question on that very matter will be debated in this House next week. Nevertheless, it is China that will decide just how fast progress is made in the six-party talks.
	China controls 80 per cent of North Korea's fuel needs and could very easily bring the country to a standstill and, indeed, has threatened in the past to do so. That threat appears to work with the North Koreans, and, better than bringing them to a standstill, brings them to reason and sense at the negotiating table. I hope that with our help, encouragement and discrete diplomatic efforts, that is what it will now do because not just Asian security and physical safety but our own security and physical safety will be directly threatened by failure on this whole front.
	As the noble Baroness herself said in our debate last year, to make progress on human rights issues, about which we have heard so much in such graphic and proper detail in this debate, as we should always seek to do, we have to make progress on the nuclear issue as well; they go together. If we unravel the nuclear issue, the room for further progress on human rights will surely be enlarged. I agree very much with that line of thought and I hope that we can make progress on all those fronts because it is imperative that we do.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the question of North Korea in the House today. He did so in a characteristically measured and powerful address and, as we all know, he is, indeed, very thorough in his follow-up. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said about the after-sales service of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—it is, indeed, excellent.
	Your Lordships have expressed a variety of concerns about North Korea's continued defiance of the international community in respect of both security and human rights. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about the two being inextricably linked. However, as we discussed during our previous debate on this issue, one of the major difficulties that we face in our dealings with North Korea is the question of access to accurate and reliable information from a country that remains largely closed to contact from the outside world.
	There are developments to report since our previous debate in March 2003, however. We have heard of some of them in this debate, and I hope to cover others. We saw the launch, in April last year, of the trilateral talks between China, the United States and North Korea to address the nuclear issue. That was expanded in August into a multilateral format—now commonly referred to, as noble Lords have, as the six-party talks—with the inclusion of Japan, South Korea and Russia. Progress is slow, but there is agreement for those multilateral talks to continue.
	Sadly, since March 2003, allegations of human rights abuses have continued to emerge more frequently and alarmingly. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is strongly focused on how to address those issues. As we heard, only last week a second resolution on the DPRK, sponsored by the European Union, was agreed by a substantial majority at the Commission. Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation for millions of ordinary North Korean citizens is extraordinarily bleak. I would like to cover those areas, and in doing so I shall try to cover some of the focused questions raised by noble Lords.
	The noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Howell of Guildford, referred in quite a lot of detail to the six-party talks. Of course, we welcome the establishment of a multilateral process to resolve the nuclear issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked exactly what progress was being made. So far, there have been two plenary meetings of the six parties, hosted by the Chinese in Beijing in August 2003 and February 2004. The first meeting agreed the two objectives of the process—the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, and the resolution of the issue peacefully through dialogue. The second meeting established a working group to discuss the next steps in greater detail. The working group has yet to convene but will do so before the next plenary meeting, which should take place by the end of June this year.
	It should not surprise any of us that progress has been slow. It is likely to continue to be very much uphill work. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to a number of the complex issues which the six-party talks process will need to address before any comprehensive and durable settlement can be reached, but I shall highlight some of those. They include: whether North Korea is genuinely committed to achieving the objective of a denuclearlised peninsula; how to address the difficulties of verification; and whether North Korea tells the truth about the existence of its highly enriched uranium programme, as well as its plutonium-based programme.
	As we consider the prospects for the talks process, we hope that it will provide an opportunity to bring greater clarity and some really practical steps which need to be taken to achieve a more stable and secure environment for the Korean peninsula. Specifically, Her Majesty's Government hope that it will aim to clarify understanding of the security assurances which the other parties may offer to North Korea in the context of the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling of its nuclear weapons programmes. That sort of assurance process will have an enormous effect. The talks should aim to pin down exactly what the scope of the dismantling should be.
	The talks should also address the very important subject of verification. The particular issues on that will be North Korean readiness to submit all their nuclear programmes to international verification, and how the international community can have confidence in any verification system that can be agreed with North Korea. The DPRK must come clean on its highly enriched uranium-based programme—on which I am afraid that North Korea continues very much to equivocate—as well as on the plutonium-based programme, which it readily avows.
	As the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Howell, reminded us, the UK is not a party to the six-party talks. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also said, there are a number of ways in which we can contribute to the success of the process. I agreed very strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about our having a real responsibility to add our voice to the argument. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a depository state for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with all its drawbacks, and a major EU country—one which has diplomatic relations with all six countries involved in the talks—our support for the process is valued by all participants. We speak to all the participants, including the North Koreans, regularly and at a high level.
	Our position on the nuclear issue remains clear. We fully support the efforts of the six-party talks process to achieve complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling—CVID—in North Korea. We believe that the six-party process provides the best opportunity to find a comprehensive and durable solution to the issue. It is important that the talks process produces an agreement acceptable to all six participants. After all, they have most at stake in what is going on.
	Over the past year, we have again stressed to the North Koreans that real security and, very importantly, prosperity can come only from co-operation and integration with the international community. We have reminded the North Koreans that the United States has stated repeatedly that it has no intention of attacking the DPRK, and that it is prepared to participate in offering North Korea assurances about its security. It is important that we reinforce that message bilaterally with the North Koreans. We continue to inform them that their pursuit of a nuclear weapons programmes, and their continued defiance of the international community, will lead to greater isolation. It is therefore in their own security interests, as well as the interests of regional stability, to dismantle their nuclear weapons programmes promptly and in a way that can be verified.
	Those messages have been given clearly at ministerial level on two occasions over the past year by my honourable friend Mr Rammell, the Minister who has responsibility for Asia. He also remains in close contact on the issue with his counterparts in the USA.
	The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to the Libyan example. We have encouraged North Korea to look very carefully at Libya's recent decision to dismantle its WMD programmes. The two countries are obviously enormously different, and we do not claim that there is a "one size fits all" solution to nuclear proliferation. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that North Korea can and should draw a lesson and encouragement from the Libyan example.
	Dialogue that has taken place both before and since Libya's announcement on 19 December has shown what can be achieved once a strategic decision to come clean about what is really going on has been made. Libya's actions since 19 December serve as an example to others. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Libyans demonstrate what can be achieved in a short time, given co-operation from all sides. They show that problems of proliferation can be tackled. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right: we have to go on trying to unravel the web of proliferation around the world.
	The noble Lord was also quite right to refer to the issues around Dr A Q Khan. The recent revelations in the media concerning the relationship between Pakistan and North Korea have been very illuminating. It was reported that A Q Khan visited North Korea and was allegedly shown three nuclear warheads. However, in the absence of a comprehensive inspection, which the North Koreans refuse, it is very difficult to know the real accuracy of such reports. If true, they would not significantly affect our own assessment of what has been known for some time—that North Korea has sufficient material for one or two nuclear weapons, and the technical capability to construct the weapons itself.
	It is interesting that Dr Khan admitted, on Pakistani national television, that he had passed nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. The activities of Dr Khan's network of suppliers were directed towards provision of uranium enrichment centrifuges—the very equipment that North Korea denies having.
	Let me turn to human rights, as all noble Lords' speeches concentrated on that important issue. Of course Her Majesty's Government share the concerns expressed, and it is particularly frustrating that North Korea refuses to provide direct evidence about the human rights situation there. Yet we continue to hear more and more reports about the systematic abuse of human rights. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead, many of the reports come from the many North Korean refugees who flee across the Chinese border. The reports are so similar, regular and numerous that their credibility is difficult to dispute, yet North Korea simply responds to such reports with flat denials.
	Earlier this year, we heard new and deeply disturbing reports that political prisoners in North Korea, including children, were being subjected to chemical experiments. Those reports were outlined in the horrific BBC documentary "Access to Evil", shown in February, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to earlier in today's debate and which we discussed at Question Time shortly after the broadcast.
	Her Majesty's Government were quick to raise these reports with the North Korean Government, both in London and in Pyongyang. I know that a number of noble Lords have also put their concerns directly to North Korean representatives, most recently, as we heard, during the visit to London by the chairman of the DPRK Supreme People's Assembly, Chae Thae Bok. My honourable friend Mr Rammell also raised these issues directly with Mr Chae, expressing our deep concerns. But on every occasion, in response to these queries, the North Koreans flatly denied the allegations. These denials are simply not credible while North Korea declines to co-operate with the mechanisms that exist in the international community for monitoring the observance of human rights. We have not just called on the North Koreans to co-operate. We have set out very clearly and simply the steps that the North Koreans must now take.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us, last week the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva passed its second resolution on the human rights situation in North Korea. As last year, the resolution was passed with a substantial majority. Indeed, 29 out of the 53 members of the commission voted in favour of the resolution. I am happy to say that that was one more than last year. It is disappointing that China did not feel able to vote for the resolution. It is perhaps not surprising that Zimbabwe also voted against. The resolution detailed the deep concerns of the international community regarding the systematic and widespread violations, requested the appointment of a UN special rapporteur and called upon the North Korean authorities to co-operate fully with him. In answer to the specific question asked about this, the appointment date and exact terms of reference of the special rapporteur have yet to be decided. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Chan, that the special rapporteur will receive the full co-operation of Her Majesty's Government.
	As we have heard, this issue is being pursued by the UK-DPRK All-Party Parliamentary Group. We welcomed the launch of that group last autumn and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on it and thank the noble Lord, Lord Chan, for all his work on behalf of that group. I am glad that together we can ensure that North Korea receives very clear messages about human rights: to admit independent monitors; to comply with international human rights instruments; and to co-operate with the international community. For a country that has for so many years kept itself deliberately isolated from the international community, these may be very difficult messages to digest but I strongly agree with the right reverend Prelate that they must continue to be delivered vigorously to the North Koreans. However, I am bound to say that at this stage I can see no great encouragement to believe that the North Koreans will be any more responsive than they have been in the recent past.
	We need to pursue the issue of religious freedom, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Clarke, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the right reverend Prelate. Despite some positive signs that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, identified during his visit, he is right to conclude that there continues to be no real freedom for North Korean citizens to follow the religion of their choice. Indeed, there is not even the freedom to access information on the range of international religious beliefs.
	We will continue to urge the North Korean Government to look at the mechanisms available, through the UNCHR, for special rapporteurs. We shall also take up the cases. We are aware of the two South Korean pastors, Kim Dong Shik and Ahn Seung Woon, which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. The resolution that was adopted touched upon the important question of religious freedom. We strongly support that resolution and, in answer to the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, we will ask our ambassador in Pyongyang to raise the matter with the North Korean authorities.
	Let me turn to the question of DPRK refugees, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead and about which the noble Lord, Lord Chan, spoke so persuasively. North Koreans are now fleeing their homeland in greater numbers than ever. Since 1953, less than 5,000 North Koreans have escaped to the Republic of Korea in the south via China, yet more than 1,200 of those left during the past year or so. The number has risen dramatically over the past few years. The Chinese authorities have in the past viewed most DPRK escapees as economic migrants and have forcibly repatriated them to North Korea. We, together with other members of the international community, have expressed our deep concern to the Chinese authorities about the detention, treatment and forced repatriation of DPRK refugees. We will continue to encourage China, through dialogue, to allow safe onward passage to those North Koreans fleeing their own country to escape an existence that is, in every sense, miserable.
	We are aware of the case of Mr Park raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. The European Commission has recently suggested that the EU should raise the matter urgently with the Chinese authorities and this is now under consideration by the EU presidency.
	On the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about asking the Chinese to allow safe passage to South Korea, we too have seen press reports from South Korea saying that the Chinese are prepared to allow refugees safe passage direct to South Korea, but there is as yet no confirmation of these reports. I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to seek clarification of that position and I hope that that assurance covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
	The humanitarian situation in North Korea also remains extraordinarily bleak and depressing. The North Koreans have just endured another very harsh winter and there are severe food shortages. Again, the North Korean Government deny any responsibility for the situation. They say that the shortfall in the provision of food aid is again linked directly to political factors. They say that the country has been unable to recover fully from a series of natural disasters in the 1990s. They do not say that economic mismanagement is to blame, which it is. They do not say that donor agencies have been denied access to parts of the country to assess the needs of the population, and they have been denied that access.
	North Koreans are brought up to believe that they live in a socialist paradise where everything they need will be provided by the Government. Yet the Government cannot feed the people. The World Food Programme estimates that almost 6 million North Koreans require food aid to meet the recommended daily calorie intake and only 52 per cent of the population of some 23 million people are thought to have access to safe drinking water.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked what the United Kingdom is doing. The UK currently has no bilateral development programme for North Korea but the Department for International Development has been active in addressing some of these issues through other agencies. For example, DfID contributes some 19 per cent of the budget of the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office and in 2003 DfID's contribution was in the region of 2 million euros. On top of that, DfID recently agreed to contribute £l million to UNICEF's work on water, sanitation and primary healthcare. In January, DfID contributed £680,000 to a project run by the European Commission to provide emergency nutritional support for malnourished children and pregnant and nursing mothers. I understand that DfID will provide further support in relation to flood prevention work later this year.
	I shall cover one more point before I wind up. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about cultural links. I thought his point about taking small steps to try to improve the bilateral relationship was very persuasive. I am pleased to say that the British Council already has a presence in Pyongyang. There is an important English language project already running with British Council teachers based in three universities in North Korea. I can give the noble Lord details of it at a later date if he is interested.
	Addressing the problems caused by, and suffered by, North Korea is uniquely difficult because of the lack of information. It is a country that refuses to co-operate at any level and refuses to integrate with the rest of the international community. The North Korean Government unashamedly proliferate missiles, yet they ask for economic and technical assistance. They blame anybody but themselves for the country's misfortune, isolation and economic decline, yet they ask for help in food, healthcare and education. It denies all the allegations which are so clearly chronicled of human rights abuse, yet refuses to admit any inspectors to verify the situation. The effect of so many years of economic mismanagement and ideological falsehoods cannot be undone rapidly.
	But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we have to pursue a patient, peaceful and diplomatic path in encouraging North Korea to rejoin the rest of the international community. Once the nuclear issue has been satisfactorily resolved, we will be able to pursue our bilateral efforts more vigorously to the benefit of the North Korean people who are currently suffering so very badly.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in keeping with the after-sales service attributed to me during the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the Minister, it falls to me to conclude our debate. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in our proceedings for sharing with us their insights about how to resolve the security issues posed by North Korea and for their account of the plight of refugees and detainees.
	The 2005 resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, referred to by the Minister, has been the backdrop for our debate. Like your Lordships' speeches, it underlines that the world community is far from indifferent to the events in North Korea. But we have also made it abundantly clear that we are willing to engage as well as to criticise. I am especially grateful to the Minister and to her officials for the approach they have adopted. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BBC Charter

Lord Barnett: rose to call attention to the BBC charter renewal; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I welcome all colleagues who have decided to participate in the debate, particularly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich who is to make his maiden speech. We look forward to hearing it.
	I should declare a past interest as vice-chairman of the BBC and for three months acting chairman in rather better circumstances than the current ones. I want to make clear at the start that I sought the debate because I care passionately about the need for a truly independent BBC—independent from government; independent from advertisers; independent from sponsors; and, above all, independent from the many siren voices we heard particularly after the publication of the Hutton report.
	The Hutton report brought many of these issues to a head, especially when charter renewal is being considered. Let me say at once that I agreed with much of the criticism of the BBC. Indeed, immediately after Gilligan had made his very serious charge that Alastair Campbell had fraudulently changed a major document to justify sending British troops to be killed in a war in Iraq, I telephoned a senior executive at the BBC. I told him that while I was personally opposed to going to war, I did not believe they could possibly have evidence to justify the claim made by Mr Gilligan. It was so serious a charge, they should immediately issue an apology.
	As we know, that advice was rejected. But while my advice was rejected, I believe that the Hutton report would have been better balanced if there had been some perfectly justifiable criticism of the Government, especially the MoD and Alastair Campbell in particular. I fear that Alastair Campbell's over-the-top and non-stop attacks on the BBC led to the seriously misjudged and ill-informed response by the BBC. Let me say that if I had been wrongly accused of such a serious charge, I, too—while, I hope, not being an Alastair Campbell—would have been very angry, to put it mildly. Sadly, this all led to the resignation of an excellent chairman and director general. The resignations were inevitable, in my view, following a bad piece of journalism and, more importantly, bad and inadequate management of that seriously flawed journalistic charge.
	These flaws must of course be eradicated; indeed, I hope that the necessary changes have already been made or will be soon. But Hutton should not, and must not, be allowed to determine the future of an independent BBC and the renewal of its charter. We now have a new chairman-elect, Michael Grade, and I offer him my congratulations and best wishes in a difficult job. He does not need to look back as far as Reith for an example of good management of the BBC. He need look no further than the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, with whom I worked closely for seven years. I am confident that Michael Grade will be strongly resistant to pressure from government—not that the present Government would bring any pressure to bear on the board of governors of the BBC—and any other source seeking to undermine the vital independence of the BBC.
	Most will agree with me that it has not stopped views being expressed on governance during the current debate on renewal of the charter. Some of those views, if implemented on renewal of the charter, could have serious consequences for the very independence of the BBC that everyone professes to support. Let me take a few of the more serious proposals that have been suggested from time to time.
	One of the favourite proposals relates to the "regulatory" role, at present mainly conducted by the governors. The "knee-jerk" reaction post Hutton is that this should be removed—or at least partially removed. Ofcom, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, who I am delighted to see will participate in the debate, already regulates the BBC's commercial and economic activities. It is responsible for basic standards of taste, decency and fairness. It oversees quotas for regional production and relations with the independent production sector. This morning I received an excellent document from Ofcom and I look forward to commenting on it to the noble Lord, Lord Currie, at a later stage.
	The former chairman, Gavyn Davies, felt that the BBC was forging a fertile relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Currie. Knowing them both, and Michael Grade, I am sure that that relationship will continue. However, I am concerned that pressure will continue for that regulation to widen further. I hope that the Government will resist such pressure. The compromise agreed and supported by the scrutiny committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam should continue. Again, I am delighted to see that my noble friend is to participate in the debate. It leaves the governors in sole charge of the vital public service remit. If the governors fail, it would of course be a very serious matter.
	Despite the Hutton report, there is no evidence of such a general failure. I see that at a recent BAFTA award ceremony, it was said,
	"Governors are the least qualified people in the industry".
	That kind of statement totally misunderstands the role of the governors. Indeed, if we had 12 governors who were all former broadcasters, I doubt whether they would be able to do as good a job as the governors now do.
	Another important question is the one that would have the audit of the BBC carried out by the National Audit Office. As a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to which the National Audit Office reports, I need hardly say that I believe the National Audit Office does a tremendous job in the crucial area of value for money. It always has. When I was chairman of the PAC, I was delighted to be able to work with such an important body. A simple statement that the National Audit Office should be given responsibility for auditing the BBC sounds sensible. But one is bound to ask: is it sensible? There are two areas of NAO audit; one is financial and the other is value for money.
	The BBC has its own independent financial audit and it has a governors' audit committee, which is chaired by a very responsible governor. National Audit Office involvement would run the risk of both duplicating and undermining the successful arrangements already in place. I imagine most people would accept that, but still argue that the National Audit Office should be given power to conduct value-for-money audits. But it should be clear that the BBC is not the same as a government department. It is a creative, risk-taking body with many commercial activities. Fear of risk-taking would be fatal to the role that I hope we all want the BBC to pursue; namely, to take creative risks. I therefore hope that the Government will accept that National Audit Office involvement would be wrong for the BBC.
	The other major area of criticism of the BBC has always been described as "dumbing down" or winning ratings but losing its purpose. That is a sort of no-win issue for the BBC. Thus, let us say that it mainly put out the kind of programmes said to fulfil the Reithian mission to inform and advocate, or to serve the prejudices of white middle-class and middle-aged viewers—even, possibly, Members of your Lordships' House. If the audience figures were then low, critics would want a major cut in the licence fee. If the figures are high, as now, the critics level the charge of dumbing down. So the BBC cannot win.
	One argument often put to support a cut in the licence fee is that it would release the BBC from what are called its present shackles and that it would be free to carry out its public service responsibilities. Again, one is bound to ask, "With what size of audience?". I am not sure about Members of your Lordships' House, but in the other place we did not watch an awful lot of television. Of course, that did not stop us criticising it.
	I fear that such a policy could lead us down the sad path of the US public service broadcasts. It is said that such commercial freedom would enable the BBC to exploit its own powerful brand name and assets. It does that now, and it does an incredible job through that powerful name in its broadcasting around the world, especially on radio through the wonderful World Service. I hope that we will never allow such so-called commercial freedom to destroy the essence of a truly independent BBC.
	I recently asked my noble friend Lord McIntosh to consider completing the consideration of charter renewal before the general election—although neither he nor I know when that will be. However, it has been thought that it will be some time next year, or perhaps the following year. I am of course aware that renewal is not due until 2006, but Parliament could be asked to decide on the kind of renewal that it wants in 2005 and it could be signed, sealed and delivered in 2005 to come into effect on the due date in 2006.
	If, during a general election, the great British public, who will, of course, have read all the documents, made it clear that they disliked what had been done, it would still be open to a new Parliament to rethink. However, I am happy to find that most political parties seem to be broadly in agreement with the proposal for the renewal of the charter. Tessa Jowell, the Minister concerned, told us in a recent House Magazine article that she and my noble friend Lord McIntosh,
	"have held public meetings all over the country and the website . . . has had over 25,000 unique hits. The one certain outcome is a strong BBC, independent of government".
	I welcome that. She went on to say that,
	"the BBC holds a special place in the heart of the nation".
	I hope that that is still true, as it should be.
	I note that Tim Boswell, the MP for Daventry and Conservative spokesman on the subject, despite feeling that there was a need for some change in the BBC's governance, said that,
	"we would do well to remember its international reputation and its central contribution to our national cultural life".
	I hope that everyone can agree with that, too. I note that the Liberal Democrat spokesman said something similar. So I would hope that renewal of the charter in the near future could deal with the central problem of preserving the independence of the BBC as I described.
	I hope that I have made clear that I do not support the idea that the BBC never gets it wrong. Of course it does, from time to time, as the Hutton report found. Its so-called "popular" programmes are often, and inevitably, not "popular" with everyone. The BBC's essential problem with a vital policy of making risk-taking programmes is that it is impossible to please everyone all the time. Making popular TV good and good TV popular has to be decided by someone. I hope that Parliament will decide in charter renewal that the decisions are best made by an independent BBC. As I said, from time to time, the BBC will get those decisions wrong. Occasionally—but, I hope, not all the time—it will allow some broadcasters to let their prejudices show, if perhaps not as firmly as happens in the tabloids or even the broadsheets.
	I cannot believe that what is called commercial freedom will be better able to focus on public value. We are speaking here of an institution that provides a vital public service both at home and abroad, an institution that is truly independent and will continue to improve the quality of life in Britain and overseas. The chairman and governors have grave responsibilities in carrying out their mission. I do not believe that commercial freedom would help. I hope that renewal will be carried out speedily, as I have indicated, and preferably by political consensus. I hope that the House will agree that a strong, independent BBC setting standards for the rest of the media is vital to broadcasting generally. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I begin with my usual declaration of interest as a modest pensioner of the former IBA and also as the father of a BBC executive, one of whose programmes I once banned when I was chairman of the IBA. I hope that that is taken as a sufficient sign that, to use the old broadcasting jargon of due impartiality, I can claim a reasonable degree of that in approaching the subject of the review of the BBC Charter. The House's thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for the way in which he introduced this debate. He himself is a doughty former deputy chairman of the BBC. Like him, I am glad to see his colleague as former chairman of the BBC, the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, in his place. I only regret that although I see him in his place, I do not see his name on the list of speakers. We must encourage him to participate in these debates.
	The charter review could hardly have begun at a time of greater turbulence for the BBC, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said. There is the new giant regulator combining both broadcasting and telecommunications. We welcome the chairman of that body to this debate. Ofcom will subsume half a dozen previous regulatory bodies. It has duties covering both the BBC and commercial broadcasters. Indeed, it has just published its own approach to a review of public service broadcasting, which I look forward to reading.
	Naturally, it will take time for Ofcom to settle down to its great new responsibilities over such a broad area. Some of us noticed with regret the other day that it appeared unable to distinguish adequately between the interests of consumers of broadcasting and those of viewers and listeners. There is a significant difference between those two important groups and Ofcom must be able to deal with that properly.
	At the same time as the new body, Ofcom, has been establishing itself, Downing Street and Broadcasting House have been having one of their confrontations, which are, fortunately, not too frequent but which are unfortunately a recurrent phenomenon of broadcasting history in this country. In this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, it was over the Iraq war. Both sides made mistakes in that confrontation, which resulted in honourable resignations at the top of the BBC. One consequence, if not a direct result, was that the Government's principal spin doctor made way for some old-fashioned civil servants. We hope that that may help to avoid mistakes on both sides in the future.
	It was greatly to the credit of the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, that she sought to put the whole of the Hutton inquiry episode firmly behind her. She declared that it would have no effect on the Government's approach to the issues raised by the charter review. I am bound to say that she has lived up to that in the arrangements that she has made for the independent selection of a new chairman of the BBC, Michael Grade. Perhaps I should confess a degree of interest, which may undermine my claim to total impartiality: I once appointed him as the chief executive of the Channel 4 corporation. He was an extremely successful chief executive.
	Michael Grade is an experienced broadcaster. He has no political past that could create problems and he has an impeccable family pedigree on the popular side of the media. I am sure that other noble Lords will join with me in wishing him every success in his new task. His first job will be the appointment of a new director-general. I hope that the governors will find a new director-general who will complement, rather than replicate, the particular qualities that Michael Grade brings to the chair of the BBC.
	My main point is that I believe that a central issue for the charter review is that the BBC, encouraged by those who wish it well and encouraged by the Government with their responsibilities in this area, takes a fundamental look at the framework of relations between the management of the BBC and the governors of the BBC. They are the product of a great history. The other day I was reading the memoirs of Lord Hill—Charles Hill—who moved from chairmanship of what was then the ITA to the BBC and on arrival he discovered that he had to share secretarial facilities with the director-general. That was perhaps an unduly cosy relationship at the time, and he took steps to deal with it.
	A central issue for the experience of the BBC in the new broadcasting landscape is that the interrelationship between the board of governors and the board of management of the BBC needs a radical, fresh look. It is important that they move closely in partnership with each other but they have separate responsibilities. I hesitate simply to draw the analogy with the Independent Broadcasting Authority, of which I was once chairman. When I occupied that position and when I was a colleague in broadcasting of the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, I thought that I had an advantage as chairman of the IBA over the chairman of the BBC: those in the IBA were not as intimately close to the broadcasters whom we regulated as the governors of the BBC found they were compelled to be. I offer no dogmatic formula for that, but it is important that a new framework should come out of the review of the BBC Charter, in which the governors of the BBC are more at arm's length than they have been in the past to the professional managers of the BBC and that they have their own separate infrastructure to support them in their duties as public trustees.
	One cannot copy the special arrangements that were appropriate for the regulation of commercial television under the IBA, but there are great merits in some of the aspects of that relationship. At the IBA we were able to take a pride in the support and encouragement that we gave to the creative broadcasters of the various companies that held the franchises and at the same time, at arm's length, we were able to act as a critical regulator of their standards. If I were to pick on one particular issue that needs to be looked at seriously in terms of the role of the BBC in the future, I would say it is that.
	In the BBC one has, warts and all, one of the great British institutions of which this country can be proud. It is important to sustain that in the changing circumstances. Paradoxically, those who 10 years ago thought that the growth of the new communications technologies—digital technology and the proliferation of channels that bring us a richness of choice that we never had in the past—would wipe away the need for a properly financed BBC at the heartland of public service broadcasting values have been proved wrong. It is important that the new charter review produces that kind of consequence.
	I notice that one suggestion that has been canvassed is that, this time, because of the changing landscape, the length of the BBC Charter should be curtailed to perhaps five years. I profoundly hope that that will not be so and that the 10-year period of the charter will be sustained. The Liberal Democrats believe that public service broadcasting, particularly by the BBC, lies at the heart of a free, diverse and responsible media.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, in the Guardian of last Monday, Stephen Carter, the chief executive of Ofcom, ended a very good and informative article which trailed today's report by Ofcom by saying:
	"television is an important medium, interacting directly with the society we are and want to be. Television matters to all of us".
	That is why I welcome this debate and thank my noble friend Lord Barnett for making it possible. In the same edition of that newspaper there was another piece by the media commentator, Roy Greenslade. He observed:
	"Then there is that worrying matter of media concentration, as evidenced by the way in which Rupert Murdoch's News International exercised firm control over the Beckham story, with the News of the World, the Sun and Sky TV obtaining virtually all the exclusive material".
	To that end, Murdoch press and television channels revelled in cross-promotion. The Times, not content with trailing the Sky One interview with Rebecca Loos as,
	"the TV scoop of the year",
	on its television page, felt it necessary to do so at the end of its news story. The Sun did the same, only bigger of course.
	Why do I choose to open the few minutes available to me with those two quotes? During the passage of the Communications Bill, we discussed a number of times the issue of so-called cross-media ownership. I and others found it quite frustrating to get the House and the Government fully to appreciate how very different the new era of digital television would be, and the form of competition that the BBC would face. That piece from the Guardian illustrates that rather well. It is a different world and everything that I say should be understood in that context.
	I very much welcome the appointment of Michael Grade. He is a friend and a colleague. I have known him many years. It is a bold appointment and one that brings enormous credit to the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, and to the officials who had to shepherd through a very difficult appointment in record time with no leaks and to general approval. That is quite remarkable. The media found it almost impossible to find anyone wholly critical of the appointment, which is enormously to Mr Grade's credit.
	This is possibly the right moment to pay a rather overdue tribute to Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke. They both performed heroic service for the BBC. The nature of their departure was honourable and possibly necessary. That does not in any way deflect from the fact that they were admirable public servants and that the BBC today owes and will continue to owe them a very great debt. In particular, Greg Dyke's influence will undoubtedly be missed at the corporation.
	We all want to see a bold outward-looking corporation, not a cowed inward-looking institution. I believe that Michael Grade will grasp that nettle. He understands the very complicated changing media landscape that I have just described, has enormous savvy and a great deal of—what my granddaughters would call—"bling". He will bring all of that to the corporation.
	Turning to the charter review, the BBC must become more responsive to the citizens who pay for it. That has been identified rightly by the Secretary of State. I suspect that it will be an ongoing feature of the way that the charter review is both carried out and scrutinised.
	The citizens who value public service value it a great deal. They do not just see it as a market-place, whatever the enemies of the licence fee may tell us. The licence fee remains the most effective and equitable form of funding that has ever been created for a public body. We all benefit from it. Even the figures, which were rather disparaged this morning by one or two of the papers, show that "only 84 per cent" of 25 to 35 year-olds watched the BBC once a week. That is not a bad statistic. There are not many businesses in the country that would be unhappy with that type of reach on a weekly basis.
	Today's report by Ofcom, which I have only had a chance to scan, is an extremely interesting document. First, it certainly gives the lie to any notion that Ofcom is setting itself up in opposition to public service or as anything other than a complementary organisation there to keep intact what I still like to refer to as "our broadcasting ecology". It contains some interesting points that I have already picked up. One finding in the Executive Summary states that while,
	"the provision of entertainment programmes was seen as television's primary function, there was substantial public agreement with the notion that the main terrestrial channels should support wider social purposes".
	The Executive Summary reports that,
	"viewers thought that television lacks innovation and original ideas [and] relied too much on copycat and celebrity programming".
	Here lies a real opportunity for the BBC; indeed, it is a challenge. The corporation should be, and often is, the crucible for the development of "innovation and original ideas", but too often in recent times BBC1 in particular has tended to fall back on a more derivative or celebrity-driven type of material.
	The BBC must step up to the plate in fulfilling both the letter and the spirit of its legal commitments to a broad public and indeed to the world I came from—the world of independent production. It must stop resorting to evasions and obfuscations or the inappropriate exercise of its power in the market-place in pressuring independent production down to a minima rather than acknowledging what is actually required of it.
	The Secretary of State was absolutely right to insist that the licence fee should represent "venture capital" for the entire independent sector. Independents are the lifeblood of creativity and innovation across the sector. I know that this matter is exercising BBC governors, and I am sure that Michael Grade will be able to put many of the mistakes of the past behind them.
	A commitment to a strategic and sustained investment in training is just as crucial in developing creativity and new ideas. The BBC is the single biggest employer of staff and freelancers in the industry. The critical creative mass it represents, combined with its public service remit and its unique funding formula, means that it is very well placed to absorb its responsibility to invest in the development of its own and, indeed, much of the rest of the industry's workforce. Both in relation to the industry and in playing its part in raising the skills game, the BBC should remain the flagship employer. It should act as a beacon, demonstrating through its practice its commitment to public service within the industry, and in providing an example of excellence in supporting the delivery of the Government's skill strategies across the UK.
	I believe that the assets of the BBC are national assets. Perhaps the content assets which its holds are not necessarily being exploited as effectively as they might be in the new digital world, where there is an ever increasing premium on the value of intellectual property. I should like to return to that subject in a future debate. Suffice it to say that I am interested in exploring all kinds of alternative ways in which the intellectual property that belongs to the corporation might be exploited overseas in ways which bring a variety of direct benefits to the licence fee payers.
	In conclusion, I should like to quote my noble friend Lord Currie, who in his introduction to the Ofcom PSB report that I mentioned earlier observed that,
	"a publicly funded BBC needs to retain scale and viewer impact. It should be the standards-setter for the highest quality of public service broadcasting".
	While I suspect that I may differ in some regards from my noble friend as to how that objective might be achieved, I very happily sign up to the principle he sets out.
	I have a last word to say on governance. Looking back on the joint scrutiny committee, I think that we were somewhat timorous in our consideration of the governance of the BBC. We rather took the position that "If it's not broke, why fix it?" We should probably have been more alert to the fact that the world was changing, and probably had changed more than the governance system was able to accommodate. The BBC needs different areas of expertise on its board of governors and a better understanding of what is going on in the broad global world of broadcasting.
	I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that what has always been lacking is the detailed ability of the board to challenge the executive. I think that we had an extremely well managed board. As we have discovered recently in all sorts of corporate situations, boards are not there to be managed. For example, that is clear from recent experience at Shell. Its chairman just did not have access to the information that was absolutely vital to retaining shareholder confidence. Something of that was true of the BBC.
	The BBC governors are entitled to have some form of secretariat which gives them the kind of information and the kind of alternative sources of information which allow them to take on the executive. That may not be the most comfortable thing that the BBC executive would wish to hear, but in hindsight had that existed I suspect that much of the trauma and drama of the past months could and would have been avoided.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am very grateful for the many courtesies that have been shown to me since I became a Member of your Lordships' House last month. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for promoting this timely debate. I should immediately declare an interest. I have recently become the chairman of the Central Religious Advisory Committee of the BBC. That committee, long known by the now rather unfortunate acronym CRAC, advises the BBC on all matters related to religious broadcasting. It has also been recently adopted by Ofcom, which perhaps places it in a unique position as advising the new regulator as well as the BBC.
	The Central Religious Advisory Committee was originally established in the 1920s in the days of Lord Reith. It was interdenominational from the start, not as a result of the wish of the Churches but because Lord Reith insisted that it should be so. So the Churches were brought together to assist the BBC in its religious broadcasting long before they worked together on almost anything else. These days the same committee includes representatives of all the world faiths. Broadcasting and in particular the BBC prompted the Churches and now the faith communities to work together in wholly constructive ways.
	The very existence of the committee is at least of symbolic significance in the quest for religious understanding and harmony in a world that is beset by division and incomprehension. It is a public and social good that deserves investment. I believe it accurately reflects the wider public value of the BBC, which should continue to be supported by means other than commercial interests and advertising.
	The way in which the world faiths work together in this and other areas of our national life is much less evident in some other parts of Europe, let alone the wider world. We are sometimes led to believe that the relative lack of tensions between our faith communities in this country derives from a tolerant secularism or benign unbelief. I believe that it derives much more from collaboration and cultivated friendships within the leadership of our faith communities, a tradition of which we should be proud, and which the BBC, perhaps to some people's surprise, has done a great deal to encourage.
	Noble Lords may have noticed over the Easter weekend that among the television channels BBC1 recorded its lowest ever share of the total television audience, at around 22 per cent. That low figure cannot have been caused by a surfeit of religious broadcasting. Such programmes were conspicuously absent or found only in graveyard slots. The received wisdom is that religious broadcasting does not pull in audiences. It is strange how that conviction endures in television when our cinemas are packed to the doors with people watching "The Passion of the Christ".
	However, the overall output of religious broadcasting during Holy Week and Easter across all BBC channels, including radio, was impressive—much better than in the late 1990s—and much of it was of very high quality. That has often been obscured, not least in the print media, by the concentration on television. There is a great deal of creativity in the religion and ethics department, as well as elsewhere in the BBC—more, I fear, than the schedulers seem to encourage.
	BBC1's poor ratings reflect a different broadcasting environment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has already referred; it is one of huge competition in the multi-channel and digital age. So the renewal of the BBC charter comes at a time when the very identity of the BBC seems uncertain. Perhaps a bishop understands better than most what it is to be regarded as a venerable institution rather than a real person, and so to live with several identities. Recently, I discovered that for myself when looking up the telephone number of a fellow bishop's office in the London directory. All my colleagues were listed—the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Southwark, the Bishop of Kensington and others—but I was surprised to discover the Bishop of Norwich listed among them. It seemed to me unexpected metropolitan recognition. I wondered whether it was the result of becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. Then I noticed the word "reservations" against my name, which is how I discovered that, in fact, I am a wine bar in Moorgate. One must learn to live with such things.
	Over the years the BBC has learnt to live with a mixed identity. It needs to connect with a wide audience; otherwise the licence fee will be resented. It therefore seeks to be a popular broadcaster. Yet the public service remit means that ratings alone surely cannot be the sole determinant for its success. There is a proper liberation from those pressures and concentration on ratings that is all for the public good. Yet to interpret the BBC's public service remit simply in terms of programmes that the market would not otherwise provide would be to marginalise the corporation. Public service broadcasting does not have to be mind-numbingly dull. The BBC's output and organisation, not only in religious broadcasting through CRAC but in wider areas, should assist its public purposes in informing and entertaining our citizens, helping to build community and providing some of the social glue that all societies need to cohere and to have a common identity.
	It is sometimes in areas of its most modest investment that the BBC provides substantial public good. Consider the value of local radio, for example. It was looked upon with some suspicion a few decades ago in the BBC when it went down that path. A quarter of the total radio audience listens to BBC local radio. The return in community building for little investment that comes through BBC local radio is too little celebrated, perhaps because of a certain metropolitan myopia. BBC Radio Norfolk, for example, contributes massively to the cohesion and identity of Norfolk in ways in which, I suspect, the market left on its own could not, or would not, provide.
	There are controversial issues of governance that I have been told to avoid, but I hope that it is not too controversial to recognise the BBC's huge contribution to the public good, and to express hope that the renewed charter will give it the capacity to build on its very best traditions.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is my happy lot to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich on his maiden speech. It is a particular and personal pleasure for me to do so because I happen to be one of the lambs in his diocese. I should also declare an interest, although it is a funny thing to do when congratulating somebody: I am high steward of the cathedral that overlooks the right reverend Prelate's house—Norwich Cathedral. The right reverend Prelate follows a line of distinguished bishops of Norwich. I like to think that that was because of the influence that the high steward breathed over them, but I fancy that any such idea would be running down the path of disproportionate and inaccurate fantasy.
	The right reverend Prelate delivered an excellent speech. It followed all the conventions of your Lordships' House: it was short, uncontroversial, engaging, jolly and we all enjoyed it. He has a glorious disposition and a great sense of humour. All those qualities will be greatly to the benefit of your Lordships' House. I congratulate him on his maiden speech and hope that we will have the pleasure of hearing him on many other occasions in the House.
	The list of speakers in today's debate consists mostly of television tycoons, of which I am not one. But the BBC affects everyone, which is why I venture to participate in the debate. If an organisation benefits from—and depends on—public funds, it will always be open not only to criticism but to castigation. That is so with the BBC. There is a cry from various quarters to dispense with the licence fee, with the inference that that will bring the BBC to heel and make it less dependent on ready cash and more dependent on the demands of the marketplace. I am not of that view. The licence fee is astonishingly inexpensive. For some 30p a day, viewers can have access to virtually continuous entertainment, news, culture and sport. That does not make the fee any easier to pay, but, once paid, it provides astonishingly good value.
	To make the BBC compete on almost similar terms to commercial television would be a disaster. The BBC has a national and international reputation. The World Service, to which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred, is one such pinnacle of the BBC's reputation. That reputation must be preserved, jealously guarded and built on. By the licence fee, the BBC has become the bedrock of television. It should be the epitome of high standards and should provide good-quality programmes. It often does all those things, but, inevitably, not always.
	I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich that ratings are not everything. They may be one measurement of the value of a programme. However, they are not the only, or necessarily the best, measurement. I suppose that it was the ratings that shoved the nine o'clock news back to ten o'clock. I thought that was a major error, because if one wishes to listen to the news, one must go to bed an hour later. Some of us feel that that is a bore.
	I fancy that when the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was vice-chairman of the BBC, and my noble kinsman Lord Hussey of North Bradley was chairman, it must have been a fun combination and those were possibly some of the halcyon days of the BBC. Things might then have seemed better than they now are, and they probably were. There is no doubt that standards have dropped. It is always easy to criticise an organisation like the BBC, which bubbles with intellect, creativity, and excitement, but it must be difficult to produce programmes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, without producing some rubbish. Those people who participate in the BBC, despite or because of their talents, make the BBC what it is. Those talents must be channelled aright.
	I have an example of undesirable standards. Between January and June last year, in 60 films shown across five terrestrial channels, not just the BBC, the "F" word appeared 1,429 times. The words "Jesus" or "Christ" were used as expletives on 221 occasions. That was just in 60 films in six months, though not only screened by the BBC. I am sure that while many of us must have used, and indeed do use, these disagreeable expletives on more occasions than we would wish to admit—I dare say that the right reverend Prelates might even have been heard venturing out some expletive if they hit their fingernail with the head of a hammer—they are offensive expletives. However, to project that language into sitting rooms throughout the length and breadth of the country is a bad thing.
	The same goes for those scenes of appalling violence that are shown and that are supposed to be entertainment. The argument goes that if you are shocked by that, you are shocked by life, because the producers are merely depicting what happens in everyday life. That misses the point entirely. People imbibe what they see on television programmes. They think that is the way to behave. When young people see a person's head being kicked in, it is too easy for some of them to think that that is what is done and is the way to do it; indeed, that can become a motivator on some occasions for their actions.
	Do these programmes have no influence on people? Of course they do. Ask any company that spends millions of pounds advertising on commercial television why it does so. The answer is because people are attracted to what they see and hear, and thereafter they go out and buy the products. If they did not do that, companies would stop advertising and would save their money. The fact is that people absorb and act on what they see. What they see while watching television in their sitting rooms is decided by the BBC, the television companies, or the producers.
	Good books edify the mind; and bad books sully the mind. In the same way, good television edifies the mind; and bad television sullies the mind. Television has a huge responsibility for the way in which society develops, far greater than people often realise. The BBC does not just react to what happens. It creates thoughts; it produces ideas. Surreptitiously, possibly even without realising it, it influences. That is a huge responsibility. I just hope that when the BBC has its charter renewed, some way will be found of giving the governors of the BBC, or some other part of it, adequate control of producers to stop them putting out bad programmes, programmes promoting violence and programmes littered with what is called "strong language", which really means the copious use of the "F" word and the other obscenities that contribute precisely nothing to the programme, or to the story.
	The governors must not be deterred from preventing the showing of a programme for fear of being accused of interfering with the artistic licence of the producers. After all, someone must be responsible for what is shown, and ultimately, via its various channels, it must be the responsibility of the chairman and the governors. The BBC produces such a variety of choice and such excellent programmes that surely it would not be too much to cut out the bad programmes and the really offensive language.
	Lord Reith, that pioneer of BBC standards, whom I remember listening to in your Lordships' House when he was just nearby on the Cross Benches, would have been horrified at some of the material that is being put out today—only some of it; the majority is so good. I just hope that when the charter gets renewed, some way will be found of making it good and cutting out the bad.

Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on introducing this debate, and congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich on his eloquent and witty maiden speech. I declare an interest of a sort as the chairman of Ofcom, although I speak in an individual capacity.
	As noble Lords will recall, Parliament has tasked Ofcom with conducting a major review of public service broadcasting. It is the first time that public service broadcasters have been looked at in the round, both the BBC and the commercially funded public service broadcasters, ITV, Channel 4 and five. I hope that our review will be a significant and useful input into the debate on the BBC Charter.
	As a number of noble Lords have already remarked, by happy coincidence our report on phase 1 of the review was published this morning. I hope that all noble Lords participating in the debate have received copies. If not, there are some available in the Printed Paper Office. You have the concise version; the full report is a good deal fatter and heavier, unless you get it on CD.
	When my noble friend Lady O'Neill recently raised a question about Ofcom's primary duties, several noble Lords expressed concern that Ofcom's use of the phrase "citizen-consumer" might reflect a downgrading of citizenship interests at the expense of consumer interests. They went on to express the firm wish that Ofcom should give due prominence to the citizen's interests. I trust that our first report on public service broadcasting will reassure noble Lords that we do indeed give due weight to citizenship issues, as the carefully considered Communications Act requires us to do. In particular, I hope that it will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that we do take the interests of viewers very seriously indeed. Our report argues that public service broadcasting remains vitally important in 21st century Britain because of its central role in serving the interests of citizens. To inform the review, we have gathered a mass of hard data from broadcasters, we have supplemented that with consultations with groups of citizens, expert groups, and one of the largest detailed audience surveys ever undertaken, covering some 6,000 homes.
	TV audiences may not instinctively understand the term "public service broadcasting", but our evidence is that they strongly support the set of values that Parliament set out in the Communications Act. Whether in traditional or multi-channel homes, there is a firm belief that television should serve wider social and cultural purposes. Generally in Britain we do television well. UK-made programming remains strong. Television news is valued, and audiences think that the broadcasters do news and current affairs reporting well. We lead the world in digital television, and audiences value the choice that it provides.
	There is therefore much in our results that is heartening, but there are some issues that give cause for concern. Audiences feel that all the main terrestrial channels, including the BBC, lack sufficient innovation and original ideas, rely too much on copycat and celebrity programming, and on occasion talk down to viewers. There is also concern about the lack of a safe environment for child viewers away from unsuitable content. That is a major concern for many people.
	Audiences, however, do not always live up to their image of themselves in what they watch. The main terrestrial channels' share is down to 57 per cent in multi-channel homes, which represent more than half of all households. It is for the more challenging and uplifting fare, such as "Horizon", "Newsnight" and "The South Bank Show", that audience share diminishes most in multi-channel homes. Identifying that fact allows us to be honest about the role of public service broadcasting and make practical proposals that reflect audiences as they are, not as we—or even they—might wish them to be. Public service broadcasting needs to have impact, as well as value and quality, if it is to deliver on its mission. That requires more innovation in formats and programming, to ensure that public service broadcasting is interesting and exciting. That point was eloquently made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich.
	So the public service ecology is coming under some strain. The shareholder-owned channels—ITV and five—have an important role as investors in UK programming. In a full multi-channel environment, they must be able to respond competitively, if they are not to diminish as investment engines for British content. We must focus regulatory intervention on the public service characteristics that give highest social value and maximum viewer impact and not give privilege to that which the market will anyway fund. That puts an even greater premium on the BBC and those who govern it to live up to the spirit as well as the letter of its remit. A publicly funded BBC needs to retain scale and viewer impact. It should be the standard setter for the highest quality of public service broadcasting.
	The licence fee remains an important funding mechanism in the PSB ecology and the right one to enable the BBC to remain independent and true to its purposes. I hope that in the charter debates the issue is not "Whether the licence fee" but rather "How much, what is it spent on, and does the output have the distinctiveness, quality and range to justify the investment?".
	As both a competition regulator and a public policy regulator over the BBC as well as commercial public service broadcasters, Ofcom believes that the viewer is best served by competition for quality. The BBC needs public service competition that is sufficiently effective to keep it up to the mark. That competition for quality is most likely to come from not-for-profit broadcasting, free from shareholder pressures and with an ethos which, like the BBC's, can be focused more purely on public sector output. That is one of Channel 4's core strengths. To be an effective competitor for quality, it needs to grow to a scale where it can condition the BBC's output. Its first recourse is to self-help, lean efficient running and effective and profitable commercial additions, but it may also form an important part of a greater, not-for-profit sector whole that may need strengthening in other ways. Those could include a share of contestable funding or a new source of direct funding. The available options need to be considered.
	That leads me to my final point: the distinction between governance and regulation. It is important not to confuse the two, as sometimes happens with those who argue for the BBC to be brought fully under Ofcom. Regulation should apply across the sector to uphold standards, enforce quotas and secure fair competition in the interests of citizens and consumers. I believe that Ofcom will quickly demonstrate its capacity and capability to deliver effective, high-quality regulation of that kind. I firmly believe that effective regulation by Ofcom provides no threat to the independence and strength of the BBC.
	Governance is different. Each broadcaster needs its own effective and independent governance mechanisms. The model is clear for the commercial broadcasters, with a conventional corporate board safeguarding shareholders' interests within the rules laid down by regulation. For the not-for-profit broadcasters, especially the publicly funded BBC, the objective of good governance must be to pursue positively and with passion the public interest at the heart of public service broadcasting independently but within the overall framework provided by regulation.
	The issue of the effectiveness of the governance of the publicly owned and publicly funded broadcasters is therefore separate from the nature and scope of regulation. There are several possible models of governance that could be made to work, and I hope that, in the debates relating to the PSB review and the BBC Charter review, those will get a good airing. However, we must keep governance issues separate from Ofcom's role in providing the appropriate framework of effective regulation.
	It is crucial to our democracy and to our society that we get the analysis of public service broadcasting and the consequent prescriptions right and that we succeed in maintaining and strengthening public service broadcasting for the 21st century. We must foster an effective and inclusive debate that redefines and regenerates public service broadcasting for the coming world of pervasive digital connectivity, maintaining the spirit and strengths of the past but shaping it for a new digital, multi-channel world. I hope that this debate and our PSB report published today will help to stimulate this wider national debate.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Barnett for making the debate possible. It is a convention of the House that we pay such a tribute, but in this case I think that we all mean it strongly.
	After the Hutton report, the BBC will never be the same again. It will present an enormous challenge to the new chairman, Michael Grade, whom I congratulate warmly on his appointment, to steer the BBC through these difficult times. I pay tribute to Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke. I thought that they both made an excellent contribution to the BBC. I am sorry that circumstances have prevented them being there at the moment. I suppose that, given the Hutton report, it was inevitable that there would be one senior resignation. I think that two resignations at the top were not necessary. I would have preferred Greg to have stayed. I know the difficulties, but Gavyn's resignation would have been sufficient. They both played an important part in strengthening the BBC, and Michael Grade will have a hard act to follow.
	I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. As such, I will refer to some of the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We had a responsibility for dealing with complaints about taste and decency, bad language and violence. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, was my predecessor as chairman of that organisation. If the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, looked at the detail, he would see that we were fairly robust about that sort of bad language or excessive violence before the watershed. I suspect that most of his comments would apply to programming later in the evening. He may not agree that we should have been, as it were, more liberal later in the evening, but we were pretty firm before the watershed because of the young people watching.
	Despite Hutton, the BBC is and will continue to be seen as a great institution. It is one of the contributions that this country has made to television and broadcasting throughout the world. The World Service is well known universally for providing the best international broadcasting that there is. I welcome the DCMS review of the BBC's Royal Charter, which was published last December. It is a helpful guide in enabling us to see the different issues. I pay particular tribute to the document that Ofcom published today. It is an excellent document on public service broadcasting. I have only had the chance to read part of it, but it is professional and comprehensive and is a good indicator of the standards that Ofcom will apply to its wider remit. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, on being chairman of the organisation that has produced such a first-class document, although I confess that I have read only part of it today, in haste.
	It is important for us to help the BBC to maintain its independence from government. Post-Hutton, that is of even greater importance. If the BBC is seen as subservient to government, it will have lost the ability to make one of its most important contributions to life in this country.
	Perhaps I may say a little about the licence fee in that context. Of course the licence fee should be maintained. The suggestion that it should be phased out, even if not immediately but over the next few years, would be a move away from the best available system to fund a body such as the BBC and help it maintain its independence.
	The newspapers have indicated concern that BBC1 has recently had lower ratings. I hope that the pressure for high ratings will not be the only way in which the effectiveness of the BBC is judged. Surely we must look more broadly at the way in which the BBC deals with its many obligations and look at the quality of some of the less highly viewed programmes, as well as look at whether the BBC can achieve good ratings in popular times. The balance between quality of programmes and ratings is important.
	I shall make one suggestion. I am concerned that the struggle, at intervals, between the BBC and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the level of the licence fee is not healthy. I suggest that we take a leaf from the book of the Bank of England, where the setting of the interest rate has been taken from the Government and given to the independent monetary committee. It would be healthier if the BBC licence fee were determined at intervals by an independent committee—perhaps Ofcom should not have that additional burden yet—which would take on board the BBC's bid for the licence fee level for the forthcoming period. That bid should be subdivided into the various elements of BBC work. The independent committee would make a judgment on how well the BBC met its various aims and objectives and would award the licence fee accordingly. That judgment would be made independently and apart from political decision making.
	Noble Lords have referred to digital switchover. There is one main constraint which may lie partly with the BBC, but which probably lies also with the Government. Large parts of the country cannot receive digital broadcasts. Until they can, digital switchover will not be possible in those regions. I have a home in the Lake District. I cannot receive Channel 5, never mind some of the other digital channels. Satellite is the only option open to me. Freeserve would not work in my area.
	I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Currie, about separating governance from regulation. The two functions are currently merged. I welcome the comments about looking again at governance attributed to Michael Grade on his appointment as chairman-designate of the BBC. I do not believe that the governors can do both jobs. It would be better if the BBC had a model such as a management committee on which there would be a number of non-executive directors. The board of governors should have a separate responsibility to regulate the BBC until such time as Ofcom, perhaps, wanted to take over that function. I am concerned also about parliamentary accountability, a subject which we will need to debate more fully on another day.
	I am concerned also that we do not yet give independent producers enough opportunities. Perhaps 1,000 independent producers are members of Pact. They should be given full scope to contribute creatively to the diversity of British television. The BBC should be under an obligation to increase the proportion of its total programming that goes to independent producers. Currently, 12 per cent of the BBC's programming budget is paid to independent producers. That is a rather low figure; it should be about doubled. I agree with Pact on that. I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Currie, said in his foreword to the Ofcom report. It states:
	"The independent producers will play a key role in 'competition for quality', and a strong independent production sector is an important part of the mix to deliver effective PSB".
	No one can say it better than that. I welcome the clear stance taken by Ofcom in supporting independent production.
	We must be careful about how the BBC's commercial activities develop. One cannot really object to activities that follow on from original work done by the BBC. The problem arises when the BBC launches a new service that is in direct competition with an existing commercially funded service. That difficulty needs to be explored in a little more detail. Commercial initiatives funded by money raised by commercial producers themselves could be jeopardised by a body that is funded by the licensee.
	I pay tribute to the BBC's radio work. Although the commercial radio sector offers very good programming, I very much enjoy and welcome the range of radio production that the BBC offers on national channels and also its local coverage of news and local events. It offers some of the highest quality radio broadcasting that I have heard in any country.
	I appreciate that the BBC will go through further difficult times until the Hutton report is out of its system, the governance issues have been resolved and a new director-general is in place. However, I think that the House can rest assured that we will support the BBC in these endeavours. We wish it a successful future.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Barnett for the opportunity to talk about a very important issue, which I suspect will become hotly contested during the next 18 months. I am proud to speak as one of the band of past vice-chairmen of the BBC. The BBC is a precious asset to this country. As many previous speakers have said, it not only sets the benchmark for public service broadcasting, but also shapes the wider broadcasting ecology. Globally, it is vital for the reputation and standing of the UK. It is not an overstatement to say that the BBC is the envy of the world, which we must not forget during the charter review.
	The periodic review that the charter review represents is important for taking stock and resetting the mandate for the BBC during the next 10 years. It should give the BBC the confidence to move ahead in an innovative and confident way in playing those roles. We should not be naive about the context in which the charter review is taking place. It is not an overstatement to say that the sharks are out. There are competitors with rather longer knives than during the previous charter review. Not only global broadcasting companies, but also the UK-based commercial sector, have a very different view of the BBC than was the case at the previous charter review. There are some people, including Members of both Houses, who feel that there are some old scores to settle.
	In the review, we must not be stampeded by the Hutton report. With digital and multi-channel households, we must not be fazed that the review is taking place in a very different broadcasting environment. During what could be a very turbulent process, I urge the Minister and the Government to reflect on how much the BBC is valued and the contribution that it makes not only to the nation's cultural, social and political life, but also how much it enhances our global reputation. The Government need to have courage and maturity in the face of clamour to support the BBC into the future and they must not inadvertently damage it in an effort to appease its critics and competitors.
	What kind of BBC do we want to see emerge from the charter review? Above all, it must be culturally and creatively vibrant, and needs a degree of security to allow it to exercise those qualities. The BBC needs to be independent and robust, particularly in the face of political pressure. I am sure that the new chairman will be so. The BBC needs to be a strong player in the competitive environment. Because of the current competitive nature of broadcasting commercially, the public service broadcaster—if it is to fulfil the role of promoting high standards of quality and impartiality—needs to be big and strong enough to play a real role in an increasingly competitive market place. The BBC needs to be a counterweight to the big global media companies that otherwise would dominate. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about media concentration. Indeed, the Government will experience the impact of media concentration in the run-up to the election in a distinctly unfortunate fashion.
	The BBC, post-charter, needs to be an institution that is responsive and transparently accountable. It needs to be able to fulfil the remit of serving the public with a wide and distinctive range of media and channels. The charter review must ensure that all these qualities are protected, developed and promoted.
	While the review will have to deal with a whole range of issues, I shall focus on only a few. First, I turn to the issue of scale and the BBC. I think that "BBC" ought to stand for "big but close" because although the BBC is an immense organisation, its scale and range is important to the public as individuals and communities at the local level as well as at the national and international levels. The BBC must be able to speak to the public and fulfil its public sector remit through a wide variety of media and channels, reaching a range of people with programmes that meet their needs, including popular entertainment. We need to see outreach to communities and the wider public through the new digital channels on TV and radio, and online. Even though some of the developments of these new channels has been controversial—some are still finding their way—I believe that they form an important part of the public service remit. They must be distinctive in order to meet the needs of particular sectors of the community for whom this channel or that delivery medium is the way that they want to receive public service television, radio or information.
	I look forward to considering in detail the Ofcom public service broadcasting review, although I hope that the definition of "public service broadcasting" remains sufficiently wide and diverse. The BBC's competitors would love to see public service broadcasting, and therefore the BBC, put into a small box labelled, "Please produce only uncontroversial and unpopular programmes that no one wants to watch".
	I turn to the funding of the BBC. It has been a delight to hear support expressed in the debate for the licence fee. The arguments from the last round of debates on the licence fee are still incredibly valid. Quite frankly, it is a miracle that BBC television still reaches 89 per cent of the population. Most households in the land benefit from their pifflingly small annual investment when compared with their Sky subscription. Moreover, the licence fee remains the best way to fund an independent, robust and innovative public service broadcaster. The advertising market is insufficient, while subscription is regressive and would bear down unfairly on poorer households. A top slice which could be allocated to all public service broadcasters would, I believe, lead to wastefully competitive bidding processes and risk micro-management by government. The licence fee provides sufficient security and scope to enable the public service broadcaster to exercise the flexibility, innovation and distinctiveness called for by many noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
	I shall touch on the commercial activities of the BBC. I am a mean Scot. Having paid my licence fee for many years, I want to benefit from it. There is an immense amount of material, both archival and current, which the BBC must exploit commercially if we are to achieve value for money for our past investment. The commercial activities of the BBC are fully subject to the economic regulator and to competition law. The BBC is simply exploiting assets that we have already paid for and, in doing so, it must be meticulous about adhering to fair competition policy and be transparent in meeting competition law and regulatory requirements. But let us see more of that hidden wealth we have paid for being exploited in ways that present it to other audiences while bringing funding back in to enhance the licence fee and thus the public service offering.
	I want to talk about a subject also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam; that is, the BBC and independent production. One of the risks of a "big but close" BBC is that it can act a little like a farrowing sow. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is not in his place. As a pig farmer, he would understand what I am talking about. Pigs have an unhappy knack of rolling over and squashing their piglets without realising that they are doing so. Sometimes the BBC can behave like that towards the independent sector. If the BBC is truly to condition the broadcasting ecology, it must become and clearly be seen to be the friend of the independent production sector. The 25 per cent independent production quota should be a floor rather than a ceiling and the BBC should take a positive approach to independent commissioning in order to help promote a vibrant broadcasting market.
	Many noble Lords have touched on the issue of governance and accountability. I, too, add my congratulations to Michael Grade. I think it is the right appointment and an excellent choice. He will be robust in his championship of the BBC and of public service broadcasting. But it is clear that the governors and the new chairman must get the governance right in the run-up to the charter review. It is important that that is gripped early, long before it becomes a charter issue. There needs to be a robust review of governance and a redefinition of the role of the governors in order to rebuild respect in the governance of the BBC.
	However, I do not believe that it is sensible to split the role of the regulator and the role of the non-executive director in the BBC. The organisation has only one purpose, and that is public service according to its public service remit. Both as regulators and as governors, they should be seeking to ensure that that single purpose is delivered. I do not think that there are two roles here.
	For all other issues—commercial competition, taste, decency and so forth—the BBC is already subject to Ofcom and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Currie will hold the BBC's feet to the fire on those matters, as indeed he should. But I do not believe that there is a true distinction to be made between the role of the governors in regulating the BBC and their role in ensuring that the executives deliver the public service purpose. It is also slightly risky to have all of our broadcasters subject to a single regulator on issues of impartiality in a hotly contested and politically fraught area.
	Those are the issues that will have to be tackled by the charter review. A last one that was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is this: let us not entertain any ideas that the charter should last for only five years. If we want a BBC that is timid, uninnovative and constantly looking over its shoulder because it is subject to permanent review, a five-year charter is the sure and certain way of achieving that. Let us look forward to a robust review, but let us not lose sight of the fact that in swimming with sharks, the very qualities of breadth, impartiality and vibrancy that make the BBC the envy of the world must not be lost.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on securing a slot to debate this subject. I speak as another former regulator, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already pointed out.
	I have listened to and very much applauded the considerable warmth expressed by previous speakers in their views of the BBC, but of course there has been criticism as well, and I have sympathy with some of it. We have heard today, as we hear in other forums, a discussion, for example, of the role and effectiveness of the governors, their lack of financial accountability, and whether the BBC should be fully regulated by Ofcom. These are not new points, of course, but they deserve and get, I am sure, rigorous scrutiny. However, they are only one side of the case.
	I have found it interesting to note that there is rather less criticism of what the BBC actually does, delivers and produces. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned some valid and very real areas of criticism and concern, but the quality, integrity, availability, diversity and popularity of its radio and TV products remain almost universally commended. They are not just commended, but are appreciated much more fundamentally than that. Indeed, the most striking feature of this continuing debate wherever it is held is the growing realisation by concerned citizens of precisely how important to them is the whole concept of British public service broadcasting. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, dwelt on this point.
	People know in their bones that the BBC sets a world standard in the quality of broadcast material, both in the UK and beyond. It is in that context that, unarguably, the BBC is the gold standard bearer; the Reithian standard against which all other broadcasters are judged, and which some of them—Channel 4 and S4C, for example—can certainly sometimes match or exceed. Above all, perhaps, what people see and appreciate is the public value of its output for the UK citizen's quality of life—a matter very convincingly set out in Mark Byford's recent speech to the Foreign Press Association—supporting democracy through independent, high quality, accurate and impartial news and current affairs; creating or partnering original ambitious British cultural programmes such as "The Canterbury Tales" and the "Big Read"; and its contributions as the biggest commissioner of music in the world. I refer also to educational support, through its co-operation with the OU; its revision services for GCSE students; pioneering expensive yet invaluable programmes such as the "Blue Planet" and, of course, the continuingly brilliant wildlife programmes of David Attenborough; and only last week we had the fascinating life and achievements of Josiah Wedgwood.
	As other noble Lords have mentioned, the BBC has a universally respected global role, not only as the world's most trusted news provider but also in its role linking countries and communities and showcasing British creativity. There has never been a time when the need for the BBC World Service was greater. As your Lordships will see from page 21 of this week's The House Magazine, it is responding very well to that need. But we—the world indeed—cannot expect to have the BBC World Service without the core values of the BBC itself.
	How many other publicly funded bodies and institutions in our society—or, for that matter, in any other society—can credibly make the same kind of claim to our respect? Local authorities? Hospitals? Railways? Universities? Some can, thank heavens, and still do so—but less and less, I fear. And why? Because they have become less and less independent and more and more dependent, from year to year, on Exchequer finance and the Treasury's hold on the purse strings. The greater the dependence on government-controlled money, the greater the damage to quality and independence. The recent debate on the university Bill illustrated that.
	The BBC's success and independence depend, above all, on guaranteed access for a period of years ahead—and here I could not agree more—to something like the licence fee. I hope it remains for a full 10 years. I know that that is what Her Majesty's Treasury dislikes—a hypothecated tax—but it is the key reason, in my view and that of others, for the real independence of the BBC; independence not only from government, of course, but of purely commercial pressures such as audience figures and advertising revenue. The BBC knows that its owners, shareholders, citizens and viewers have a wider perspective than that: public value and diversity, as well as popularity.
	The BBC knows, too, that it is more accountable in the broadest sense—its reputation matters—but more is expected of it. Noble Lords may be surprised to hear me say that in the light of Hutton, where it clearly made a mistake. Of course, who does not sometimes? But it was exposed to detailed public examination of a fairly ruthless kind, and probably rightly so. I acknowledge certainly that quality sometimes falters—one word, "Gilligan", sums that up—but, by the same token, even the Law Lords, noble and learned though they certainly are, sometimes nod. I doubt whether any of your Lordships would wish to condemn them on the strength of one word—"Pinochet", for example.
	Would any other broadcaster have been similarly savaged? I do not think so. It would not have been seen as so important; our expectations would have been lower. Not so for the BBC. It knows, as we know, that it could properly be called to account, to appear in the dock in person. How many other media channels or newspapers could or would have been challenged so directly? Would any others have been so expected and so ready to expose themselves in that way?
	Can any of your Lordships recall any occasion when any newspaper or TV station proprietor and his chief executive or editor resigned their office because of a factual error in their output, and then followed it up with an apology as handsome as that made in the House by the noble Lord, Lord Ryder? Of course not. But coming from the BBC, we were not quite surprised, just because it is, and remains, different.
	Given that case, I, like many noble Lords, am clear about one thing. It is not that there is no case for change in anything about the BBC—of course there is—and the rapidly changing competitive digital world in which it operates makes that inevitable. We must be ready to examine with candour and with courage all these areas, but it is for those who want to make such changes to prove their case for making them—all the more so if the changes they seek to make are fundamental.
	As we await the result, like many of your Lordships, I wish to congratulate the new chairman, Michael Grade. In my role as a regulator in the past I had one or two brushes with him, but the quality and the spirit of the new chairman is very appropriate for the current moment.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I am pleased to congratulate my noble friend Lord Barnett on introducing the debate. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, is in his place. It was, of course, the noble Lords, Lord Hussey and Lord Barnett, who were chairman and deputy chairman at a particularly important time in the BBC. The great praise that I can offer them both is that it is they who could have saved the BBC as we have known it.
	During their period as chairman and deputy chairman, Margaret Thatcher, as Prime Minister, opposed the BBC licence fee, which she condemned outright as a compulsory levy with criminal sanctions. How far she might have wished to reduce the position of the BBC we can only speculate.
	I have always felt that their efforts, not the arguments, and the emollient way in which they opposed the wishes of the Prime Minister of the day was the equivalent of that of Sheherezade. Again and again, following a number of meetings, they were successful in delaying any action. And so the noble Lords, Lord Hussey and Lord Barnett, helped to preserve the BBC as we have known it. It is a great tribute to them both.
	My contribution to the debate is based on the profound admiration that I have had for many years of the BBC. Of course it makes mistakes, but there are many people for whom I have high praise—some in this House—and they make mistakes too; we all do. But they should not be judged only on those errors; we have to look at the whole person—or, in the case of the BBC, the whole institution.
	I believe that the BBC is one of our two greatest institutions. The two greatest institutions in our country are the BBC and our Civil Service. It is a terribly sad reflection of our times that these are the two institutions which are under the greatest threat at the present time. Those who admire them both must speak out strongly in their support.
	A major strength of the BBC is that we turn to it at times of crisis or of national importance. The BBC sets standards from which others cannot depart too far. It has shown its integrity and its independence and, faced with a quite unwarranted attack, sought to defend itself. It is a British institution in which one places much confidence and, as we have seen, those who attempt to denigrate the BBC find that it readily rebounds upon them. The assertion is that the BBC ought to have verified the 45 minutes with an ardour that the Government themselves did not verify in their own claim that weapons of mass destruction could be deployed in that time.
	The question is: which media group is perfect? The obvious answer is "none". What we who admire the BBC can claim is that, overall, in its news programmes, it is reliable and trustworthy. The BBC does not answer to advertisers; it is not beholden to them, yet it is measured by one yardstick and much of the rest of the media is judged by another, more flexible one.
	What is deeply deplorable, and even menacing, is the way in which one report, which included an inaccuracy, was used to attack the BBC and to bring about the departure of its chairman and chief executive. We all know that, from looking at some countries, the BBC must not be the Government's lapdog. It must not be bullied, a point that my noble friend Lord Dubs made very well. That is why Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke had to demonstrate their independence, particularly because of their political background. What was wrong was the wholly intemperate way in which the Government attacked the BBC—not just Andrew Gilligan. In the face of the constant and unremitting pressure from Alastair Campbell, they had to demonstrate a sturdy defiance. The torrent produced a feeling that their independence was under attack. Their behaviour was honourable. If the representations had been less vehement, an accommodation could, I believe, have easily been reached.
	When one looks at the inaccuracies of Fleet Street journalism, one is impressed by the standards of the BBC. The Government do not often attack Fleet Street with its sometimes deplorable standards, but have chosen the BBC, which has the highest standards of all the media. By contrast, the way in which the BBC has reported fairly the attacks upon its own integrity, including even unflattering stories about itself, is impressive.
	Comments have been made about the independence and standards of Channel 4 and ITV 1 and 2. I acknowledge this valuable aspect. The question we have to ask is how much of this is due to the standards set by the BBC. The noble Lord, Lord Currie, accepted this important role. This is an important yardstick, and we all benefit from it. If the yardstick were removed, where would the commercial temptations lead us?
	The governors cannot just be independent monitors—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was right. They are seen, quite correctly, as supportive of the BBC's role. What is required is an overall view of the work of the corporation and the capacity to advise—sometimes robustly—but it should not be unsympathetic external advice. As my noble friend Lord Barnett pointed out, there is no evidence of failure by the governors. Of course they can make mistakes, but any mistakes must be seen in the context of 80 glorious years of British broadcasting. We may come up with some improvements in the way in which the governors are selected and run their affairs, but the greater danger is the consequence of charter renewal, which may do too much. We have to beware of that.
	I was chairman of the National Audit Office for 14 years. The main reason for that, of course, is that we were not very successful in winning elections during that period. The National Audit Office is a magnificent body. It expanded, and I had the privilege of proposing the present leader of the NAO—the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It does a splendid job, but when it comes to risk-taking, there are real problems. Of course it can see to financial rectitude and it can understand risk-taking in the Ministry of Defence field. But when it comes to risk-taking in particular areas where the BBC and the arts are concerned, it does not have that kind of expertise and it is not easy to see how it could obtain it. That is why I think we should retain the present position, and that the governor's powers should not be reduced.
	On the renewal of the charter, I hope that we will reach a political consensus. It would be very sad if this becomes a political football, as some people have thought. However, I hope that we shall come to appreciate that this was a period when things went slightly wrong and that we can see the wider picture and make sure that the BBC stays with us as the important embodiment of our culture and our society as we have known it.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on getting this slot today, not least for mentioning, in such favourable terms, his impression of the Liberal Democrat views about public service broadcasting. We are grateful for his reference to my honourable friend's remarks in The House Magazine and elsewhere. They were reinforced by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
	We on these Benches believe very firmly that the BBC should remain the dominant institution in public service broadcasting and in the country's broadcasting landscape. That is not to say that we do not recognise that as we come up to the charter renewal—the Government recognise this because, otherwise, they would not be consulting so widely on it. We are at a difficult point. I do not quite follow the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as to why Hutton should have changed public service broadcasting so radically. I can see that it has been changed in the short term, but I cannot see that it has been altered for all time. Perhaps we can have a chat about that outside the Chamber.
	I am probably just over the average age of Members of your Lordships' House. I always used to think that I was younger but as I looked around the Chamber tonight while listening to the debate I saw so many young and distinguished faces from the broadcasting industry and I realised that I have been glued to a radio or television set for most of what will be my 69 years.
	I had a peripatetic youth. I was born before the war, as my age indicates, and was moved around during the war. I have jotted down on my piece of paper what were the most extraordinary moments in broadcasting that I experienced. I think my most extraordinary memory is of a summer's day in 1943, I think, listening to "ITMA" on the radio in the middle of the day when the sky was black with American bombers going on daylight bombing raids. There was a curious incongruity to this extraordinary happening in the sky and this wonderful programme with catch-phrases that held everybody so enthralled.
	I never saw television until the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen in 1953. I saw it in France, where I was spending a short time with a family before going into the Army. I was asked to a very large gathering in the smart 16th arrondissement to see the BBC's relayed programme of that extraordinary event. It was a very wet day, as your Lordships who were alive at the time will recall. The French audience, who were affluent and elderly, were spellbound during the broadcast. Much to my embarrassment—I had only just turned 18—when it was time to leave, everybody shook my hand as they went out of the door. I always thought the reason for that was their admiration for our monarchy, but I now realise that it probably was not. It was the recognition that they were seeing first-class television broadcasting.
	I have to say that since that day, broadcasting has been rather a disappointment to me. I remain firmly a radio listener. I have jotted down what I listen to and what I watch, and for a parliamentarian, I watch and listen to quite a lot. On the radio, I listen to "Today"; on Mondays, I listen to "Start the Week", and on Thursday mornings I listen, when I can, to the programme of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg—"The Moral Maze"—though that may give an inflated view of my intellectual capacity.
	When it comes to television, it is not quite so encouraging. Almost every night I watch "Newsnight". I also watch "Have I Got News For You", snooker—whenever it is broadcast—and I switch to Sky for the boxing on Saturdays. I watch the History Channel and repeats of "Seinfeld" and "Dad's Army". As noble Lords may gather, I have some interest in France having spent my formative years there, so I sometimes watch the French satellite channel TV5.
	On a serious note, we must decide what public broadcasting is all about. I do not think that that debate has been fully entered into. The Government are clearly trying to influence this debate and they are going about it in a sensible way. We all know about quality. I was interested to hear two very experienced noble Lords mention "beyond quality innovation". That is a great thing for the public service broadcaster—something it can do with the kind of funding that it has. It can be dangerous from time to time; it should be able to afford to fail. That is where there could be a conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, mentioned the National Audit Office. If the National Audit Office is going to overlook what has already been done by the in-house auditor, inevitably, if it sees what is perceived to be a waste of money or something that does not offer value-for-money, it will start to find things that can be disposed of. Innovation will surely be one of those. That is a serious matter that must be addressed.
	I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the Elstein report clarifying the purpose of public service broadcasting, which our excellent Library gave to me. It seems almost taboo to mention the report, but I found it absolutely riveting. It dug away at things and pushed to the boundary discussion about what was perceived to be wrong with the present public service broadcaster. People have been put off by the solutions that were given, and I agree about that. However, to have dug away at some of the problems of the public service broadcaster and the difficulties that it faced was very brave. It is an extremely interesting report to read. I recall that it said that it was necessary to clarify the purpose. As a result of DCMS consultation, I hope that the purpose will be clarified. In 80 years, the purposes must surely have changed quite radically.
	The need for pluralism nowadays is clear. Although I described it with a sense of humour, my eclectic watching is not unusual. Most people nowadays have broad interests. We do not all gather round the next day and discuss the same programme. We all have our own interests. Pluralism is very important in public service broadcasting. The whole landscape of advertising revenue means that the responsibility for public service broadcasting output is almost entirely with the BBC. Channel 4 and ITV cannot, without great difficulty, fulfil their public service remit, which is damaging.
	The reputation of the BBC will outlive hiccups such as the Hutton report and, should a satisfactory settlement be reached for the review, the BBC will go on for some time to come. There is an interesting question in the DCMS's report, which asks:
	"Should the BBC provide something for everyone?"
	That strikes me as an important question. Can the BBC today possibly maintain its quality if it has to provide something for everyone? After all, we are a very widely constituted society. We are a multicultural, multi-racial and multi-religious society. We must have some objective standards or aims about what public service broadcasting will deliver, otherwise I fear that we will see too much effort to please everybody.
	The way that the educative, entertainment and information roles are carried out will decide the future of the BBC. It will only carry on through the support of the licence fee payer—the public at large. It must do that with quality and without derivative programmes—I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Currie and Lord Puttnam, about derivative and celebrity-led programmes, which represent the state of affairs in much of our theatre now.
	Was Gavyn Davies right? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked whether changing the dominant position and advantage of the BBC within the broadcasting environment would open the door to political interference and commercial pressure. That is a very important question. The Elstein report did not agree, which is interesting. Surely, the continuing threat to the independence of the BBC is the Government's control of the licence fee, which they always hold over the BBC. It needs a leader with enormous strength of personality. I echo what other noble Lords have said about the appointment of Michael Grade. He is remarkable. Incidentally, if noble Lords ever go to dinner with Mr Grade, they should get him to do his impersonation of Tommy Cooper because it is by far the best I have ever heard.
	Time is short. There is no more that I can say to a distinguished House full of noble Lords who have great experience in this subject. I am being watched very closely by my noble friend Lord McNally here beside me, who has flown in from Bulgaria—although not to hear my speech. He would have been making this speech, and with his robust good humour, he would probably have touched nerves that I cannot reach. There is no time to go into some of the interesting things that have been said. My recommendation to noble Lords who have not been present this evening is for them to read the Hansard report of the debate, because it has been fascinating.
	On a final note, I am absolutely addicted to radio. Please leave it in the public sector. Whatever happens, please let it be publicly financed to maintain its quality in the future. If we think back to pre-television days, the reputation of the BBC was founded on the importance of radio to people in this country.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I will immediately follow the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in saying that I am also completely addicted to Radio 4. It has been as much a part of my education as anything else, so I entirely agree with what he said. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for raising this important debate to call attention to the forthcoming BBC charter renewal. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich on his excellent maiden speech. I am rather sorry about our tradition of not being controversial, because we should use these opportunities early on in this period of charter renewal to be a little controversial and radical and think about all the possibilities for the future of the BBC. I have had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, to say how sorry he is that he could not attend this debate. The governors of the BBC are busy discussing their document today, so he cannot be with us, which is a great shame.
	We welcome the appointment of Michael Grade as the new chairman of the BBC. I have always thought that he has a great deal of chutzpah and I join the grandchildren of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in saying that I guess that also means "bling".
	This is a crucial time for the future of public service broadcasting. The broadcasting landscape has changed dramatically since the last charter renewal process, with the advent of new technology such as digitalisation, the increasing numbers of channels and availability of new platforms for delivery allowing greater diversity in programming choice, both in radio and television. Most notably, the expansion of the Internet and services such as BBC Online have meant that we now have greater choice in how, where and when we access information.
	This charter renewal period offers the opportunity to consider the position and role of the BBC as an institution. The numerous issues to be addressed in this review are challenging and wide-ranging. At this early stage, definitive solutions to change should not be offered until the responses to the first phase of the consultation process have been digested. Furthermore, the BBC's submission to the review will not be made until the incoming chairman and director-general have assessed their position.
	In May 2003, the Conservative Party consulted an independent group, which calls itself the Broadcasting Policy Group. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to the Elstein report. The group was asked to address the key issues that it believed required reform within the charter renewal process. The resulting report was designed to stimulate debate, both within the Conservative Party and the broadcasting arena as a whole. Although some of the report's proposals are very radical, I believe that if we are to have an open and honest debate about the key issues that affect the future of the BBC, wide-ranging options on differing sides of the broadcasting spectrum must be introduced. We must make full use of the opportunity, but those options must be considered with great care, and always with an eye to the future, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, bearing in mind the keen competition that the BBC will face.
	The Government's charter renewal consultation paper begins by asking,
	"what do you value about the BBC?".
	The BBC's role as a public service broadcaster is a central part of the British broadcasting ecology, although public service obligations are additionally conferred on the three terrestrial commercial channels. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the role and remit of the BBC as the dominant public service broadcaster is clearly defined. The charter states that the function of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain. In return, the citizens of the United Kingdom expect the BBC to provide, among other services, impartial and accurate news programmes that they can trust.
	I refer to a recent report by the Centre for Policy Studies to provide an example of why the BBC must ensure that these obligations are met. The report is entitled, An Outbreak of Narcolepsy—why the BBC must improve its coverage of the EU. The report addresses the increasing role played by the European Union in our national political life and concludes that this position is not adequately reflected by the BBC's coverage in this area. The time allocated to this important topic is of increasing significance. Only yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that following the enlargement of the EU on 1 May, the electorate should be asked for their opinion on the adoption of the European constitution. The CPS report found that since the European parliamentary elections in 1999, the time devoted by the main BBC television news bulletins was just 2.6 per cent. The report states that an analysis of the BBC's coverage of the EU also reveals an underlying assumption that listeners would find European politics dreary.
	The question of the ratification of the European constitution is of fundamental importance to this nation. The relevant issues need to be covered comprehensively, thus allowing the electorate to make an informed, educated decision about their country's future governance. Suggestions to remedy the problem include the adoption of an EU affairs slot on news services and the appointment of a European affairs editor to ensure that the BBC's public service obligation in this area is fulfilled. These proposals should be considered by the BBC in light of this report. While the press provides alternative views on whether the EU constitution should be adopted, the BBC will be required to provide a balanced and impartial approach to the issues pertinent to this referendum.
	I turn now to the question of funding. How the BBC is financed has long been one of the most contentious and debated aspects of its organisation. The main funding alternatives have been outlined in many reports, including the Peacock committee report in 1986 and Davies report of the Independent Review Panel in July 1999. The Davies panel, asked to consider how the licence fee could be supplemented rather than replaced, concluded that,
	"from the BBC's point of view, the licence fee is the best way to finance public service broadcasting. The security of regular income allows the BBC to take a long term perspective . . . however, the downside, as with all forms of guaranteed, tax based revenue is that it frees the BBC from the need to respond to changing consumer preferences".
	The primary funding alternatives available include advertising, voluntary and compulsory subscription and the licence fee. I do not believe that advertising would provide an acceptable means of funding the BBC. Advertising spend is finite, and the ability of commercial broadcasters to make high-quality programming should not be compromised in any way. We need to ensure that the broadcasters subject to public service obligations remain in a commercially sustainable position in future. Furthermore, as Professor Eric Barendt—Goodman professor of media law at University College, London—said recently,
	"introducing advertising on some or all of the BBC's public services would be likely to alter the range and quality of BBC programmes, leading inexorably to a more populist and less distinctive schedule. The programmes would have to attract high spending audiences . . . which could force the BBC to cut back on challenging and innovative programming . . . or to reschedule minority programmes out of peak times".
	Clear advantages exist in the development of subscription-based funding. Subscription could take a number of forms, such as voluntary, compulsory or individual programme subscription. The main advantage with this system of funding is that payment could be made on an individual or "per home" basis depending on programmes watched and number of television sets owned, as well as ability to pay. The BBC is central to the public service broadcasting ethos. At present, a voluntary subscription service would not be desirable as a method of funding the BBC, as it could dilute the fundamental principles of public service broadcasting, such as universality and social inclusion.
	A gradual move towards compulsory subscription could be considered as an alternative to the licence fee. Compulsory subscription would provide a determinable income stream for the BBC but would also facilitate the forthcoming digital switchover. The compulsory subscription rate could include core BBC public service radio and television channels with the option to take further additional channels if desired. This method of funding would allow the citizen an element of choice as to which niche BBC channels they receive. However, reception of the core channels could be, as at present, a mandatory requirement. Compulsory subscription would allow the administrative costs in collecting the licence fee to be considerably reduced.
	The increased availability of new technology, such as wireless Internet connection, which provides immediate access to high-speed streaming data services anywhere, including restaurants and coffee bars, warrants further consideration. WI-FI, as with a fixed internet connection, allows users to watch live, real-time BBC news broadcasts on their computer wherever they are in the world. As convergence continues and technology improves, the computer user will be able to access more data and programming via the Internet.
	How the licence fee would provide a viable long-term funding mechanism for the BBC and the funding issues presented by this new technology must be fully considered. I believe, in light of the rapid advancement of technology, that the current renewal period of 10 years is long. Perhaps a shorter period of seven or even five years should be considered.
	I find the proposal by Carol Tongue and David Ward to establish a council for public service broadcasting of particular interest. Their submission to the BBC charter review public consultation proposes that,
	"it is necessary in the first instance for the issue of funding to be removed from the primary political domain and from lobbying by the BBC and other interested parties".
	An alternative body, albeit with distinct powers, was suggested by the Broadcasting Policy Group.
	It is imperative that the governance of the BBC is independent from both governmental influence and from the BBC's executive structure. The current system, whereby the governors are both the regulators and champions of the BBC, is not tenable and will become increasingly unsustainable. Here I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Indeed, I have strong sympathy with the view that the current board of governors does not in essence adequately reflect the diverse interests of society. A transparent, accountable and external constitution must be put in its place. I urge the Government to consider an alternative structure that allows the BBC to remain strong and independent. The word "independence", which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, focused on in the first place, is the most important word in this debate. We also welcome the publication today of Ofcom's review of public service broadcasting, Is television special? I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Currie, had to say this evening.
	I see that my time is up, but I want quickly to touch on one important area relating to the BBC's commercial activities. The BBC continues to work hard to try to persuade us that its commercial activities remain at arm's length from its publicly funded activities. However, in truth there are areas where the BBC is blatantly abusing its powerful brand, for example, in areas of cross-promotion. The BBC will, I fear, undermine its reputation as a public service broadcaster, diminish its ability to defend its core purposes and weaken the UK broadcasting industry as a whole if it does not take up this issue with care.
	On the positive side of its commercial activities, I join the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in urging the BBC to consider ways of using its incredibly valuable intellectual property worldwide to commercial advantage—more funding for greater investment in quality programming makes good sense.
	I wish that I had more time to respond to my noble friend's passionate speech about programme content. The process of charter renewal has just begun. We need more time for debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said the other evening in the debate on higher education, there is never enough time to say what needs to be said. I wonder if it might be possible for those of your Lordships who are particularly interested in this matter to meet informally. Personally, I believe that together we could make a valuable contribution. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, who said that political consensus is what is required here. It is something that we in your Lordships' House could really look to. In that way I believe that we could make a really valuable, worthwhile and long-term contribution to the debate and therefore to the future of our most loved BBC.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the month of March 2004 was a horrible month for me. I spent a good deal of it travelling round the country—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions—on behalf of my department taking part in the public consultation on the charter review. At this point I look carefully at my officials in the Box who are lovely people.
	I visited independent producers and watched children in Govan, Glasgow conduct a debate on the licence fee. I visited children in Southampton who had their own TV studio in their school. I talked to BBC and other public service broadcasters. I held industry seminars and rather unsuccessful public meetings. All of those people had the right to say what they thought about the BBC. The only person who did not have that right was me. I do not care for that. I am not known as a person without opinions. The same position applies today. The only opinion I can pronounce on behalf of the Government as we get into the public consultation process is that we believe that the outcome will be a BBC which is strong and independent of government.
	The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, extended that to the BBC being independent of advertising as well. I was about to say that I had some sympathy with that but that would be going beyond my remit. However, I heard what he said. I am grateful to the noble Lord both for finding a slot for this debate and for the way in which he introduced it. All of the comments that have been made and the very many deeply felt views which have been expressed today are now part of the consultation process, or will be when Hansard is published tomorrow morning. It is difficult to beat the sound bite of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, about the role of the BBC in making popular TV good and good TV popular. I think that he would agree to extend that to radio, but that comment sums up what many of us think about the BBC. It was a good introduction to what has been a good debate.
	It was a particular privilege to hear the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. If he will give me the relevant phone number, perhaps I can make my reservation for his future speeches because certainly today's speech was an excellent maiden speech. He referred to religious broadcasting. He may know that under the guidance, with the help of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, we have, as we undertook to do during the debates on the Communications Act, convened a very wide-ranging meeting on religious broadcasting which will take place on 30 June this year. At that meeting we shall hear a very wide range of views on the issues on which the right reverend Prelate touched in his speech.
	As I am not in a position to express opinions, all that I can really do in the time that is available to me is to say something about the way in which we are approaching the charter review. It is fortunate that the debate is taking place on the day on which Ofcom presented its findings and conclusions on stage one of its review of public service broadcasting. That was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Puttnam, and, of course, by the noble Lord, Lord Currie. The great thing about the report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Currie, referred, is that the very wide-ranging research carried out by Ofcom showed continuing public support for the BBC and for a greater social purpose for the BBC. The report maintains the duality between the role of citizen and consumer. The Ofcom report states that even if, with wider choice, the role of the BBC in maintaining the interest of the consumer fades away, the role of the BBC in protecting the role of the citizen will continue and, indeed, be strengthened. That makes it all the more perverse that Ofcom still insists on using the portmanteau word "consumer". I acquit it of any charge of abandoning the citizen, but it is going about it in a very strange way.
	However, having said that, our own consultation activity, which has been going since December, is proceeding very well. In early December we distributed more than 400,000 leaflets on request to public libraries, local government offices and anyone who would take them. We distributed 200,000 leaflets to Take a Break on 4 March. As I said, we have held public meetings and consultation visits throughout the United Kingdom to allow people to speak directly to Ministers about the issues. We have also given children and young people an opportunity to have their say. There have been around 5,500 responses to the initial consultation, including a large number from interested organisations and the broadcasting industry. We have had 26,000 visitors to the charter review website. All of this work is hugely complicated to analyse but we are now engaged in the analysis process although clearly it is too early for me to give any indication of the thrust of that.
	Following that analysis we shall carry out our own research and, around the turn of the year, we shall publish a Green Paper in which we shall reach preliminary conclusions and in which we shall isolate some of the significant and viable options which might arise from the consultation process. At the same time we have ensured the independence of the process by putting in place a strong adviser to underscore our commitment to objectivity. As is well known, that adviser is the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who will chair a small independent panel to help to marshal the arguments and set out the options for consideration.
	All of this was started early to ensure that we have adequate time to debate the issues and develop what will replace the current charter on 1 January 2007. Following our Green Paper to be produced at the turn of the year, a White Paper will follow in 2005. They will take into account the results of major consultation exercises, the first of which closed at the end of March, as I said. At that stage, we must clearly think about parliamentary scrutiny. I do not think that any agreement has been reached with the authorities or usual channels in either House about what the parliamentary scrutiny will be, but I give an undertaking that it will be no less thorough than the scrutiny that took place on the previous occasion.
	I have done most of what I am able to do. There are a few factual points that noble Lords raised to which I can respond. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to digital coverage and the fact that about 25 per cent of the population is not able to receive digital terrestrial television. I hope that he realises that the significance of that is that we have said that we shall not undertake the switch-off of analogue television until the act of switch-off makes available, from analogue spectrum, the same coverage of digital television as there has been. We cannot achieve 100 per cent before switching over, but we can achieve the same proportion when we carry out the switchover itself.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, had some very valuable things to say about the coverage of European issues in broadcasting and by the BBC. In particular, she spoke on the need for impartiality in considering those issues. Now that we shall have a referendum, that is even more important. The existing charter and agreement ensure that the governors exercise responsibility for impartiality, and that the BBC treats,
	"controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality, both in the Corporation's news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy".
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, queried the timing of the charter review process and suggested that the charter should be reduced to five years.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I said as strongly as I could that I hoped that the rumours about five years were totally untrue and that the Government remained firmly committed to 10 years.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that; I misunderstood the noble Lord. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made the same point. He is quite right, of course. The significance of that was that the Government decided very early on that we would set a formula for the licence fee until 2006, to ensure that there was no political pressure possible through it during the run-up period to the renewal.
	Earl Ferrers—the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; he likes to be addressed properly—made a point about responsibility for taste and decency on television. He was answered largely by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. However, under the terms of the Communications Act and associated amendments to the BBC agreement, the core responsibilities of the BBC governors are retained. The Act introduced a number of new external requirements to be monitored and enforced by Ofcom. They include most programme code standards, including taste and decency. There has been no weakening of the regulatory process, although the noble Earl is of course entitled to his view about the result in terms of what appears on screen.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, although the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the matter was monitored, the horse has already left the shed? It is only monitored because something bad has been said.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl's point and that there are those who feel that, whatever the rules, there are occasions—some people think that there are large numbers of occasions—when they are not adhered to.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a point about independent production quotas. It is certainly true that, in 2002–03, only 21 per cent of qualifying programmes on BBC1 and BBC2 were independent productions. I do not excuse that in any way. The BBC expects to exceed the quota for the present year, 2003–04, and the governors will monitor the position very closely. I entirely agree that the 25 per cent should be a floor, not a ceiling, and that we should look to a larger role for independent production companies and for an improvement in the relationship between the BBC and the independent productions that it commissions.
	I have made a boring speech; I had to make a boring speech. I make boring speeches on the subject all the time, because I cannot do anything else. I repeat the mantra: the result of the process will be a BBC that is strong and independent of government.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, and the one noble Earl, who participated. The debate has been particularly good, and was enhanced by the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I am sure that we all want to hear him again on many occasions. He is obviously attuned to the House at a very early stage. He was amusing and had excellent points to make, and we were delighted to hear him.
	I obviously cannot refer to many of the speeches. However, the noble Earl referred to me and everyone else who participated as television tycoons. I have never been described in that way before. I do not know whether to thank him, but I have certainly never considered myself a tycoon in any sense of the word. It is very interesting; he spoke of the "F" word being used 1,429 times—I think that he counted it, personally—over a couple of days. I hope that it will not happen again, and that he will be able to stop counting very soon.
	I have one comment to make on the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Puttnam. He wanted to see the board of governors being able to challenge the executive. When the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, was the chairman and I was his deputy, I am happy to say that we always were able to challenge the executive and did. I hope that future boards of governors will continue to do the same.
	My only other point—I do not have much more time—is for my noble friend Lord Dubs, who made an excellent point. Everyone who spoke in the debate wanted to see greater independence for the BBC. My noble friend spoke about the possibility of having an independent body along the lines of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England deciding the size of the licence fee, rather than the Government themselves. I have had a little to do with the Monetary Policy Committee on the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, and I appreciate the point. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh is in a listening mode, rather than having an opinion at this stage, I hope that he took note of that comment, which is well worth making.
	Again, I thank everyone who has participated in what I consider to have been an excellent debate by a very distinguished band of speakers. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

International Self-Defence

Lord Thomas of Gresford: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they accept the legitimacy of pre-emptive armed attack as a constituent of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; and, if so, whether they will define the principles upon which it will be exercised.
	My Lords, when I formulated the Question, I did so in response to comments made by the American President, President Bush, about the new policies that he was introducing. The Prime Minister is following in his wake, as he has on so many occasions. On 5 March, the Prime Minister addressed a meeting of businessmen in his constituency. He said:
	"It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, . . . This may be the law but should it be?".
	He continued:
	"Before September 11th, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, namely that a country's internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance".
	The Westphalian treaty put an end to the Thirty Years War, which had wasted Europe and caused millions of deaths and untold suffering on a scale that was not repeated until the great wars of the 20th century. It had high ideals, based upon Christian values, and if the promotion of peace and harmony between nations, which was contained in that treaty, did not by any means always lead to the peaceful conclusions that its signatories foresaw, nevertheless the principles of that treaty held sway until 1914 and were subsequently incorporated in and informed the Charter of the League of the Nations and the United Nations Charter in 1945.
	The fundamental tenets of the United Nations are set out in Article 2:
	"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".
	These principles were derived from the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648.
	War is illegal. There are only two exceptions. The first is armed intervention authorised by resolution of the Security Council. The second is the right of a member state to act in self-defence, as set out in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which says:
	"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security".
	That gives an inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.
	Self-defence justifies the use of armed force in the violation of another state's territory—crossing a border—in three instances: where an armed attack is immediately threatened; where there is an urgent need for defence; and where there is no practicable alternative to proportionate action in self-defence. In 2003, no threats existed to the territory or to the military forces of either the United States or the United Kingdom.
	In the early months of 2003, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General gave a legal opinion, which in effect launched the attack upon Iraq since we now know that the generals refused to move without it. He did not seek to suggest in the summary of his opinion that we have been allowed to see that the attack was justified by reasons of self-defence under Article 51. I agree with him.
	He justified the invasion on the basis that the 1990 authorisation of force by the United Nations, which launched the first Gulf War, was revived by the failure of Saddam Hussein to comply with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire; in effect, that he had blocked the investigations that were being carried out by United Nations inspectors. I totally disagree with him. The Iraq war was illegal. I do not propose to spend much time on this topic because it is not the main thrust of my argument, but Resolution 1441, when finally agreed in November 2002, did not contain the familiar trigger words that would have authorised the United States, the United Kingdom, or any member state, to take military action against Iraq.
	The original draft of the resolution, as disclosed on 2 October 2002, sought to lay down that failure to comply with the inspection provisions of the resolution would constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations. It went on:
	"such breach authorizes member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the area".
	That was the wording that the United States and the United Kingdom were contending for. That is what they wanted: specific authorisation. Those were the words that triggered the Korean War, the first Gulf War and United Nations-backed armed interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda and Bosnia throughout the 1990s. They authorised member states to use,
	"all necessary means to restore international peace and security".
	In all the instances that I have quoted, the Security Council responded not to threats of aggression, but to actual invasion, large-scale violence or humanitarian emergency. Seven weeks of negotiation and exhortation by United States and United Kingdom representatives at the United Nations in October and November 2002 failed to get the explicit authorisation of military force that the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States were seeking. If they did not need such authorisation because it already existed under the resolutions of 12 years previously, why did they seek it?
	I do not doubt for a moment the integrity and professionalism of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, but the refusal of the Government to waive legal professional privilege so that we can see the whole of his opinion, together with his instructions, leads to the inevitable and reasonable inference that it contained qualifications that only historians will be able to judge. I assure your Lordships that it is rare for any lawyer to give an unqualified opinion.
	But now in his latest statement the Prime Minister moves to support American efforts unilaterally to change international law. I suppose the view is that the Security Council did not countenance armed intervention into Iraq: it must therefore be circumvented in some way. It is instructive to remember that the United States led members of the United Nations Security Council in condemning the pre-emptive tripartite aggression carried out by England, France and Israel against Egypt in the 1956 Suez War. The United States was party to promoting resolutions that demanded the immediate withdrawal of British, French and Israeli forces. Later, the United States voted with the other members of the Security Council to condemn Israel for its pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 1981, during which Israeli planes destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor. That attack was also condemned by the British Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
	What then is this new doctrine of pre-emption, which certainly did not exist at that time, that Mr Bush and his hard-line administration have adopted? On September 20, 2002, the administration unveiled its new national security strategy. This document addressed the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks armed with the agendas of fanatics, as they put it. The strategy claimed that these new threats are so novel and so dangerous that they should:
	"not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of selfdefense by acting preemptively".
	Now the US claims a right of self-defence to act pre-emptively, on its own. To use the word "pre-emptively" in this context has been recognised as a misuse of language.
	Senator Edward Kennedy, speaking in the US Senate soon after this publication, on 7 October 2002, pointed out that strikes that target a country before it has developed a capability to become threatening are not pre-emptive attacks, but preventive attacks. He said:
	"The coldly premeditated nature of preventive attacks and preventive wars makes them anathema to well-established international principles against aggression. Pearl Harbor has been rightfully recorded in history as an act of dishonourable treachery".
	Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because Japan believed that America was preparing to expand its influence in the Pacific. Senator Kennedy went on:
	"Historically, the United States has condemned the idea of preventive war, because it violates basic international rules against aggression".
	So when in February and March 2003 the United Kingdom, with the assistance of Spain, again sought Security Council approval for military action in an oblique fashion by their draft resolution of 7 March, the Security Council was not persuaded. The draft resolution was withdrawn presumably because this Government realised, through telephone taps of the Secretary General's conversation with its members, that the resolution had no chance of being passed.
	According to Bob Woodward, extracts from whose book, "Plan of Attack", are published in the Washington Post today, the President told Mr Blair on 12 March 2003 that he had had it with the resolutions:
	"'If we don't have the votes', Bush said, 'pull it down. We're through'.".
	So the United States and the United Kingdom were unable to persuade the jury of world opinion that there was sufficient evidence of a security threat to justify the invasion, the destruction of property and the loss of life which the war entailed. And world opinion was right. The need for authorisation by the Security Council is the essential safeguard against military adventure. If a country cannot persuade the members of the Security Council and avoid a veto by a permanent member, it does not have a case for a legal war.
	Where do we now stand? Should we traipse into a war on the say so of the President of the United States? Do we ourselves declare war simply on the basis of our own intelligence sources which so singularly over-estimated the threat posed by Iraq? If we abandon the need for authorisation by the United Nations, what other principle is to be applied?
	Critics in the Prime Minister's own party have had their say. Tam Dalyell denounced Tony Blair's Sedgefield speech as "passionate, self-justifying drivel". Robin Cook, writing in the Independent on 19 March, the anniversary of the invasion, said:
	"A fitting way to mark the anniversary would be to drive a stake through the doctrine of pre-emptive strike and bury it where it cannot be disinterred to justify another unilateral military adventure. The new Bush doctrine claimed the right to make war on any country that could be a potential threat some years down the road. Iraq has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that intelligence cannot provide evidence reliable enough to justify war on such a speculative basis".
	Does the growth of international terrorism change the parameters? The answer is no. The Iraq invasion itself was not a response to terrorism because no link with Al'Qaeda was ever claimed by the British Government. And as for Afghanistan, the Security Council immediately passed resolutions which recognised the right of the United States to defend itself against the attack of 9/11 and eventually authorised the invasion of Afghanistan. It had full United Nations Security Council approval. The United States did not complain then about the United Nations' response.
	If one state can claim the right in international law to defend itself by pre-emptive military action, entirely on its own assessment of a potential future threat, then every state can claim it. The security of the world in every part will be destroyed.

Lord Judd: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is to be thanked for and congratulated on having given us the opportunity to consider this issue today. I say genuinely that I have had a lot of anxiety about intervening in this debate. To intervene in such a learned debate, opened by someone with as much legal experience as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to be wound up by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and to have the insight of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with his legal experience, is quite a challenge for a layman.
	I took heart by re-reading the charter and remembering that its opening words are,
	"We the Peoples of the United Nations".
	It is most important that we do not allow consideration of these issues to become monopolised simply by legal analysis. There was a spirit of "we the peoples" in the aftermath of the Second World War which means a great deal.
	Secondly, in a lifetime spent in international work in and out of Westminster, I have become convinced of the imperative of the rule of law internationally. In doing so, two other considerations have increasingly struck me. First, it is not just a matter of having a rule of law; it is a matter of having equal access to the rule of law and consistency in its application. Therefore, if we in the United Kingdom, together with our friends in the United States, are advocating the cause of the international rule of law, we should be at all times exemplary not only in the detailed legal requirements but in the spirit in which we observe it. After all, we in our own society have for a long time said that it is a matter not only of justice being done, but of justice being seen to be done. People must feel that what is being done is in accordance with the law.
	Having said that, and again drawing on my experience of international work, it would be naive to suggest that in the highly dangerous world in which we now live there are no issues surrounding the possible need for pre-emptive, perhaps even preventive, action as distinct from waiting to react. The cost of waiting to react could be incalculably great. But I would argue that in the greater cause historically of the sustainable rule of law across the world as a whole, it is more important than ever that any changes in the rule of law are approached honestly, in a considered and balanced way, through political debate at international level so that international consensus is built behind what is being done.
	But if we are also talking about preventive and pre-emptive action, there is another lesson to be learnt. It is a sensitive issue, but it is no good dodging it. If such action is to be contemplated, it is indispensable that that action is based upon sound, carefully evaluated intelligence and not upon what can be imagined by people, whether that is fair or not, as a political decision to take certain action for which intelligence is then collected to justify the political decision. That is an absolutely crucial consideration.
	My next point is that it is rather like discussing the Bible and other documents of equal significance. There is a danger about debating specific articles of the charter. The charter is a carefully crafted document. One has to look at the charter as a whole.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, quoted from Article 51 and I shall not bore the House by quoting it again. However, in this context one has to look at Article 39 to which the noble Lord referred. It states:
	"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
	Article 51 is clearly an article that is very realistic. It says that if something happens that requires immediate action—and obviously requires immediate action—that action may be taken. However, the charter goes on to make it plain that such action has to be brought together under the auspices of the UN as soon as possible. That action may be taken, but that brings us to the kernel of the difficulty: almost everyone has put 9/11 down to Al'Qaeda. However terrible the regime was in Iraq, and as someone who has been responsible for work carried out by a humanitarian agency in Iraq in the bad years, I take second place to no one on the horrors of that regime—it was a terrible regime—it has to be acknowledged that the involvement of Iraq in 9/11 has never been established.
	So what was the action in Iraq about? The only justification under Article 51 was that there was an imminent and overpowering threat. As we have seen, that has not been established. It makes it all the more questionable why the methodical work, which was being undertaken by the UN through its inspectors and so on, should have been short-circuited, rather than waiting until that work was completed and there was a chance to evaluate it. It is apparent that there was not an overriding case in terms of imminent danger and overpowering threat.
	Of course, weapons of mass destruction were central to the argument. Weapons of mass destruction have not been found. I have always been a little cautious about saying that because the weapons have not been found that shows that the war was illegitimate. It is theoretically possible that the weapons may still be found. I believe that it is highly unlikely, but it is possible. My concerns are about whether they could have been deployed overpoweringly and speedily, justifying action under Article 51, and about the need for UN authority.
	Another argument is that the Iraqis failed to act in accordance with previous UN resolutions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred. But the previous UN resolutions dealt with the material, the weapons and so on that could be a threat. The evidence is still conspicuous by its absence in terms of overweening urgency in this situation.
	Reflecting on these matters, I have come to the conclusion that it would be wanton irresponsibility on the part of the Government not to take the issue of international terrorism seriously. We all have to be prepared to consider how the new challenges, which until quite recently we never envisaged, should be tackled. I have a great deal of feeling for the responsibilities that lie on the shoulders of my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. I am glad that it is he who is shouldering those responsibilities because I have a great deal of respect for his outlook on political affairs.
	If we are to tackle the issue of terrorism, it is not just an immediate terrorist threat in a specific situation that should concern us; we should be concerned that terrorists operate and succeed in a climate of significant, widely-based ambivalence. If many thousands or millions of people do not get up every morning saying, "Our first task is to eliminate, to reveal, to bring to justice terrorists", if people whose plight is so terrible in economic and social terms that sometimes they wake up in the morning saying, "They are doing terrible things, how horrible, but perhaps they are on our side, even though the action they are taking is wrong", then the terrorists have the climate that they seek which gives them maximum room for operation because there is a climate of ambivalence.
	We therefore have to be resolute in tackling the issues of economic and social justice. But it is not simply a matter of economic and social justice on which we have to be resolute, but also the matter of political power. Coupled with the economically and socially disadvantaged, there are many highly intelligent, extremely well-educated people in the world who feel totally excluded from the power structures of the world. That is a diabolical mix which gives terrorists the best possible situation from their own standpoint in which to deploy their wickedness.
	We have to tackle the issues of the distribution of power. We have to show that when action is taken it is not just taken by a small, well-endowed—literally—group of nations, telling the world how it should be run, but that it is undertaken with the maximum possible endorsement by the international community. That is absolutely essential to winning the battle for hearts and minds. That is why I have always felt that it is unfortunate to suggest that before such action is taken, there is a legal requirement alone to have a UN Security Council resolution. As the law stands—before we change it—that is certainly a requirement. But what really matters is that such a resolution by the Security Council should be the seal of authority on an international consensus that has been built. The task is to build international consensus and not to say that we are dispensing with collective international responsibility and taking over the running of the world ourselves. That is the issue. Language becomes very important. It is not a matter of saying, "We are going to do this", or "We are going to do that". It is a matter of saying that together with all the people in the world who care, together with those in Iraq who care, we shall do those things so that the responsibility is shared.
	I know that the case was put together on the basis of previous resolutions. I have alluded to the degree to which those previous resolutions may not have been contradicted quite in the way in which sometimes it is easily assumed they were contradicted. Much more importantly, if something of the significance of Iraq was to be undertaken, it seems to me that it was crucially important that it was undertaken in the demonstrable context of the maximum possible international consensus.
	I conclude by saying that we are now looking at the future. I think that the world has been extraordinarily forgiving. People across the world are now looking at the future and at what we are to do for the future of Iraq, the future of stability in the region and the future of stability throughout the wider world. I beg the Government to learn from what has happened in recent years. It really is absolutely essential that in all that is done for the future we have the explicit, specific and demonstrable authority of the international community as represented in the authority of the United Nations.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for introducing the debate. It is a pity that more noble Lords are not speaking on this important topic, but the hour is late. Like my noble friend Lord Judd, I rise with some hesitation; perhaps more so. This is a debate about international legalities. Many noble Lords who spoke today, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, are themselves eminent and learned members of the legal profession. I am not a lawyer and perhaps I feel a little out of my depth. But the subject is important and I have certain views that I should like to add.
	I suppose it was inevitable that the discussion today would centre on Iraq, which is one of the two centres of great unrest in the Middle East. I shall not speak about Iraq but will confine my points to Israel and Palestine. Is it not odd that in a part of the world where Turkey occupies part of Cyprus, where Syria occupies and controls Lebanon and where Armenia occupies part of Azerbaijan, that only Israel seems to bear the brunt of occupation and has to answer questions about pre-emption? Much of what I will say this evening will be centred on the fact that other countries, including our own, take pre-emptive action, but it seems to be Israel that is singled out and treated with a harsher level of condemnation.
	It would be useful to look at some of the background to the situation. Perhaps noble Lords will bear with me. I know that much of it is known, but I should like to make a few points. For three and a half years Israel has been subjected to a horrendous and continuous barrage of Palestinian-instigated violence from within the West Bank and Gaza Strip; 400 civilians have been killed, which is equal to two Madrids, in a country of 6 million people. What is not often mentioned is that many of the people—in this case 2,000—have been horrendously injured, often by flying ball bearings and nails.
	The Palestinian Authority has taken almost no steps to comply with its fundamental obligations under the Israeli-Palestinian agreements to combat terrorism, to arrest terrorists, to confiscate illegal weapons, to prevent incitement and to co-operate on matters of security. To the contrary, Palestinian officials have consistently supported and encouraged terrorist actions and engaged in incitement.
	In order to comply with its responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens, Israel has initiated a series of defensive measures intended to protect the lives of its civilians, while limiting, as far as possible, injury to Palestinian civilians.
	Painful dilemmas are created by the fact that the terrorists invariably locate themselves within civilian areas. While the prevention of injury to civilian bystanders must be a paramount concern, the fact that a terrorist deliberately places himself within the civilian population does not grant him immunity.
	Noble Lords will remember that in the Bosnia crisis, in Kosovo and latterly in Afghanistan, we ourselves have been faced with the same dilemma. It is in the nature of cowards to hide behind the skirts of civilians, and hospitals and schools are their buildings of choice. What wonderful propaganda it makes for them when a shell explodes in the wrong place.
	Among these defensive measures, as a rare and exceptional measure, is the targeted killing of terrorists acting with impunity from within the Palestinian territory. Considered use of this measure is both lawful and appropriate.
	I should like to look at the right of self-defence in the face of terrorist attacks. No state is required by international law to remain passive in the face of an armed attack. This is a cardinal principle of customary international law.
	Israel's options for prevention have been severely narrowed by the failure of the Palestinian side to comply with its obligations to combat terrorism, and, to the contrary, by its active support and encouragement for many terrorist acts.
	The alternative to targeted killings—in other words waiting for more innocents to be blown apart by Hamas—will result in far more deaths than those that occur in targeted killings. Until the Palestinian authority can effectively suppress terrorist activity, Israel is left with no choice but to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure itself.
	Let me address Article 51 of the United Nations charter. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, summarised some of its key points. Israel remains in the position of being barraged with attacks by a terrorist group, which explicitly promised to persist. Israel is not required by international law to remain passive in the face of these armed attacks. Use of phrases such as "assassination" and "extra-judicial killing" to describe such defensive acts is just a little inappropriate.
	"Assassination" is generally used to describe the murder of a prominent person or public official for political ends. The targeting of terrorists focuses not on the public role of the individual, but on the role played by him in the murder of innocent civilians, and has as its goal not political motives but the saving of lives. "Extra-judicial killing" implies that an alternative legal recourse is available and has been deliberately ignored. On the rare occasions that Israel targets terrorists, it is precisely because no legal recourse is available. As such, the policy is no more extra-judicial than any individual using force to defend themselves from attack.
	I turn to the fourth Geneva Convention. Some have contested that terrorists cannot be targeted in this manner due to protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions. That claim is unsubstantiated, however, as the Geneva Conventions are intended to protect civilians during times of hostilities. It follows that an individual who actively promotes and engages in terrorist attacks, utilises weaponry and armaments, or leads a hostile military organisation, cannot be defined as a civilian by any stretch of the imagination. He or she could not expect to benefit from those protections provided for civilians under the conventions. Put simply, it seems to me that those individuals who directly and actively partake in hostilities forfeit the immunities of civilians under those Geneva Conventions.
	I should now like to address the topical issues of the killings of Rantissi and Yassin as well as other Hamas leaders. This is clearly an issue that causes great worry and much hand wringing. Sometimes I throw up my hands with disbelief when I hear the words that are uttered in support of these brutes, thugs and killers. These people, the Hamas leadership, have only one redeeming feature—they tell the truth. They say they want to kill all Jews, that they will never recognise the state of Israel and that they want an Islamic state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. That is what they say and it is true. And as I said in your Lordship's Chamber last week, Jews take it very seriously when a leader says he wants to kill us all. We have heard it before and we did not believe it. These days it tends to concentrate the mind. Rantissi was one of the leaders and proponents of an extremist terror organisation which has committed 425 terror attacks, not including those that have been foiled by the Israeli defence force, killing nearly 400 Israelis and injuring more than 2,000.
	Rantissi personally vowed that Hamas would continue its attacks on Israeli citizens and repeatedly rebuffed all attempts of reaching a negotiated ceasefire, stating that,
	"we will be unified in the trenches of resistance. We will not surrender, we will never surrender".
	He was adamantly against the notion of negotiation with the state of Israel, refusing even to accept the existence of Israel as a legitimate state, and he repeatedly declared his severe opposition to the Oslo accords, which were formed on the basis of such political recognition. Rantissi perpetually rejected any attempt at a ceasefire with Israel, as well as any type of political understandings between the Palestinian authority and "what is called the state of Israel", as he put it.
	The Hamas doctrine leaves Israel with little feasible alternative. These circumstances necessitate that a state, which is responsible for the welfare of its citizens, defends them from such attacks. Past terror attacks, and the certainty of them in the future, compel Israel, as it would any other state, to defend itself and its citizens from terrorists who promise intentionally to inflict tremendous harm.
	As the Labour leader Shimon Peres remarked following Rantissi's death:
	"This is not the type of operation we are enthusiastic to carry out. We do it because we have no choice".
	Were Hamas to agree to and actually implement a ceasefire and negotiate with Israel, Israel would discontinue the policy of targeted killings. Sadly, Israel was unable to find a peaceful partner in Mr Rantissi, just as with Sheikh Yassin.
	That leaves another hypocrisy. When coalition forces in Iraq successfully targeted the sons of Saddam Hussein, nobody cited Article 41 or the 4th Geneva Convention. Rantissi, like his predecessor, Sheikh Yassin, was responsible for the sort of indiscriminate killings of which the Hussein brothers would have been proud. Therefore, it must be asked why Israel's targeting of Rantissi was so deplorable when the death of the Hussein brothers was widely supported by the international community. Here is yet another hypocrisy: when our special forces based in Afghanistan and Pakistan are busy, presumably, tracking down terrorist number one, Osama bin Laden, nobody complains. Indeed, I suggest that there would be some rejoicing were he to be removed from the scene. So why should Israel be treated any differently?
	I wish to remind noble Lords of an occurrence where Israel did take pre-emptive action, which has already been mentioned in this debate, and that was widely condemned by countries around the world. In 1981, the Israeli Air Force bombed the Osirak nuclear plant in north-east Iraq. At that location Iraq had been developing its own nuclear bomb and was close to going live. The plant was flattened. Saddam's nuclear hopes were destroyed. Israel reacted as she did because she felt that her existence was being threatened—and so she was. Had Israel not taken that action, imagine Saddam and his sons with the bomb. Imagine him marching into Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia. What would we have been able to do? Absolutely nothing. Sometimes pre-emptive action saves the day.

Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for enabling me to speak briefly in the gap. As my speech follows that of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, I had guessed that I would hear much about the Israel/Palestine situation with which I agree. I shall make just one comment on that. Sheikh Yassin, who was recently the subject of a targeted assassination, had made the statement:
	"We are against the killing of all civilians, but Israelis are not civilians".
	The results are there for us all to see.
	I wanted to speak because I was quite surprised that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford apparently relies entirely on the rule of law. That is a good idea in principle. But if the rule of law must be adjudicated at times by the UN—and in order to comply with the rule of law, before making attacks on other countries, one must get the permission of either the Security Council or the UN; I am unsure which—that is a belief in the UN that I find difficult to share.
	If, when the terrible massacres were occurring in Rwanda, an appeal had been made to France or even the United States to send in troops to try to prevent the violence, the UN might not have authorised that. In that case, under the rules as I understand them, the countries being called in could not have done anything about it, because they were not being threatened, and the massacre would have continued.
	In the same way, what would have happened if the Holocaust had been occurring only within the borders of Germany, and if Germany had not been at war? At that time, would we have authorised other countries to go in to prevent the Holocaust? I have not yet heard anyone address the issue of massacres, which tend to occur within a country.
	The same applies to Bosnia. The massacres that took place there were an issue brought before the UN. So far as I can recollect—I admit that I have not researched it for today—the UN was disinclined to support any attacks on the Serbs to prevent what was going on. As usual, it took America's effort, supported strongly by Britain, to bring the necessary attacks upon that country without UN permission and to bring the massacres to an end, with a peace agreement arrived at in due course. The entire reliance on the UN frightens me.
	My last point is one that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, made. It relates to the attack on the nuclear establishment of Iraq. At that time every country in the Western world, and probably elsewhere, verbally attacked Israel for such a dastardly act. But during the Gulf War it was interesting to note that not one country felt that the destruction of Iraq's nuclear establishment was anything but good. Incidentally, had Iraq's nuclear establishment not been destroyed, might it not have used it when the war commenced?
	I am sorry to say that we are being a little simplistic when we consider that we can rely entirely on the goodwill of the UN to prevent terrible things happening in this world.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I start by disabusing the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of the fact that I am a distinguished lawyer. That accolade belongs to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, whom we are very grateful to see, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I might be a lawyer, but I am not distinguished. I have forgotten most of the law that I ever knew. The simple points that I shall make are largely political rather than legal.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, on bringing forward this timely debate. He ranged widely, and, possibly taking the advice of his noble friend Lord Russell, my noble kinsman, started off with the Treaty of Westphalia. I am afraid that my research took me back only to 1837, when the United States Secretary of State Daniel Webster, following the attack on the "Caroline", explained that to qualify as self-defence, there must be,
	"necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation . . . [the act should involve] nothing unreasonable or excessive, since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence must be limited by that necessity and kept clearly within it".
	Obviously, going on from self defence to what we could term anticipatory self defence, there is considerable controversy. I do not wish to be drawn into that this evening, although that is properly the subject of the debate. I will concentrate more on the simple issue of the recent Iraq war, and the reasons put before another place as to why that war should be justified and why certain of us in another place voted for going to war. My noble friend the shadow Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, made clear in a debate in another place on 9 March why he voted for the war:
	"I did so based on my assessment of the position and, of course, on the material that the Government presented to the House—presumably, the exact basis on which the Government intended hon. Members to make up their minds".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/3/04; col. 1421.]
	We are therefore grateful that Her Majesty's Government's most senior law officer, the Attorney-General, is with us this evening, and we hope that he will be able to explain in some detail why he made that decision. As I think he knows, we on these Benches feel that there is a strong need to publish the full legal opinion that he offered to his colleagues in the Government to encourage them, and no doubt the senior military, about the legality of the war. My honourable friend the shadow Attorney-General made it clear, again in that debate, that we accept that normally—I stress normally—that kind of legal opinion is not published. However, this is not a normal occasion.
	The shadow Attorney-General also said:
	"It is ordinarily important that such advice should remain confidential. The reason for the confidentiality is exactly that enunciated by the Foreign Secretary: the desirability of being able to get advice without it being published and also because—I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman would not disagree—the Government cannot hide behind the advice of an Attorney-General. It is the Government's decisions, based on advice, that have to be taken. In the old days, the advice used to be called an opinion. It is someone's opinion, not the gospel truth, that is offered to the world. It is the best advice that an individual, having sought the opinion and help of others, can offer the Government on what may be a complex and difficult issue".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/3/04; col. 1421.]
	However, we are involved here with some complicated issues and with the vagaries of international law. We are also confronted with the fact that there were reports that there was another legal opinion from the Foreign Office that came out against the war. Perhaps the Attorney General can confirm this, but as I understand it, the author of that report resigned as a direct result of going to war.
	As I made clear, normally we would accept that the advice from the Attorney General should remain confidential, but on this occasion, in March of last year, a summary of that advice was published by the Government. They argued that this compromise meant that the opinion was made public, but that confidentiality could be preserved. The summary stated:
	"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security".
	The summary states that the fundamental reason for going to war against Iraq was that Saddam Hussein ignored successive United Nations demands to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programmes. This was backed up by the Government's September 2002 and 2003 intelligence assessments, which have been the subjects of further debate and considerable comment.
	It seems to me, as it did in that debate on 9 March to the principal Liberal Democrat spokesman, Sir Menzies Campbell, that the principle, or the convention, that such advice not be published was breached by that publication, and also that it was a recognition by the Government of the special circumstances of the time. Again, I stress that my honourable friends, many of whom voted with the Government on that occasion, voted on the basis of what limited advice they saw—they did not see the full advice—and on the Government's intelligence assessments. It seems that the Government therefore recognised that there were special circumstances, and it seems that the case for publication of the noble and learned Lord's advice is a pretty strong one.
	The Question that we are dealing with tonight can go much wider than the simple issue of the legality of the war in Iraq. Other noble Lords have commented on the situation in Israel and in other parts of the world. The noble and learned Lord could, if he wished—I hope that he will not—treat us to what might amount to an academic dissertation on the generality of the possibility of action under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In the light of the Question, it would, I suppose, be legitimate for him to do so. However, following last year's events and given the importance of the decisions that the Government and Members of another place had to make when they voted for the war on the basis of the intelligence dossiers that were published, we understand, after a certain amount of editing and on the basis of the advice given by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, that this debate is another vehicle for the noble and learned Lord either to explain his advice in some detail or—far better—to agree to its publication.
	Certain members of the Government have seen the advice. I understand that some members of the Government who later resigned, such as Clare Short, claimed that they had not seen the advice. We owe it to them, to those who voted in another place on the war and, more important, to the Armed Forces who did the fighting—many of whom paid the ultimate price—to let the legal opinion see the light of day. Whatever the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General says this evening, we cannot in future let our soldiers go into battle with serious doubts about the legality of their action. From the Chief of the Defence Staff downwards, all must have full confidence in the rightness of what the Government ask them to do.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on having secured the debate. He asks Her Majesty's Government,
	"whether they accept the legitimacy of pre-emptive armed attack as a constituent of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; and, if so, whether they will define the principles upon which it will be exercised".
	Despite the discouragement from the noble Lord opposite, I shall answer the Question, although I will go further—he need have no doubt about that.
	Article 51 of the charter provides that,
	"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations".
	It is argued by some that the language of Article 51 provides for a right of self-defence only in response to an actual armed attack. However, it has been the consistent position of successive United Kingdom Governments over many years that the right of self-defence under international law includes the right to use force where an armed attack is imminent.
	It is clear that the language of Article 51 was not intended to create a new right of self-defence. Article 51 recognises the inherent right of self-defence that states enjoy under international law. That can be traced back to the "Caroline" incident in 1837. If the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will not accept the description "distinguished lawyer", he can at least accept "accurate lawyer". It is not a new invention. The charter did not therefore affect the scope of the right of self-defence existing at that time in customary international law, which included the right to use force in anticipation of an imminent armed attack.
	The Government's position is supported by the records of the international conference at which the UN charter was drawn up and by state practice since 1945. It is therefore the Government's view that international law permits the use of force in self-defence against an imminent attack but does not authorise the use of force to mount a pre-emptive strike against a threat that is more remote. However, those rules must be applied in the context of the particular facts of each case. That is important.
	The concept of what constitutes an "imminent" armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats. For example, the resolutions passed by the Security Council in the wake of 11 September 2001 recognised both that large-scale terrorist action could constitute an armed attack that will give rise to the right of self-defence and that force might, in certain circumstances, be used in self-defence against those who plan and perpetrate such acts and against those harbouring them, if that is necessary to avert further such terrorist acts. It was on that basis that United Kingdom forces participated in military action against Al'Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It must be right that states are able to act in self-defence in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups, even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack.
	Two further conditions apply where force is to be used in self-defence in anticipation of an imminent armed attack. First, military action should be used only as a last resort. It must be necessary to use force to deal with the particular threat that is faced. Secondly, the force used must be proportionate to the threat faced and must be limited to what is necessary to deal with the threat.
	In addition, Article 51 of the charter requires that if a state resorts to military action in self-defence, the measures it has taken must be immediately reported to the Security Council. The right to use force in self-defence continues until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. That is the answer to the Question as posed.
	But I go further, particularly because it has been suggested that the military action taken against Iraq was based on an alleged right of pre-emptive action against Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps I may say very clearly that that is not the case. It has never been the position of the Government that the military action against Iraq was legally justified on grounds of "pre-emptive self defence". In particular, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Judd that that was not the basis of this Government's action.
	As your Lordships are aware, my view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq was set out in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale on 17 March 2003. On the same date, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary submitted a memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee which gave further detail of the legal position. Those documents made clear the Government's view that a legal basis for the use of force against Iraq existed in the combined effect of UN Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.
	It is evident, therefore, that the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq was not to be found in an alleged right of pre-emption, but rather in an authorisation given by the Security Council. Perhaps it is regrettable that the detail set out in those government documents—in particular, the FAC memorandum—is often overlooked by those commenting on the legal position.
	The noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised, as has been raised previously, the issue of disclosure of such advice as I may have given to the Government. There have been many calls for that. But the Government have made it clear repeatedly to this House and another place that they do not intend to do so, given that there is a long-standing convention, adhered to by successive governments, that advice given by the Law Officers is not publicly disclosed. The convention enables the Government to seek and receive full and frank legal advice in confidence. That is in the public interest so that governments of whatever party take full and frank legal advice and act in accordance with the rule of law. I do not intend to say anything different today. I disappoint the noble Lord, although I suspect that there is no surprise in my saying that.
	I take the opportunity to address some of the criticisms levelled at the legal position set out in my Written Answer. In doing that, I should like to make it clear that I am expressing my view of the legal position for the benefit of the House. I do not intend any waiver of legal professional privilege in any advice that I may have given.
	I want to make four points. In a sense, this responds to allegations made today or previously by those who take a different view; I always respect an alternative legal point of view. The first allegation is that the action was unlawful because it was not authorised by the Security Council. In my view, that is not correct. Resolution 678 explicitly authorised the use of force. The second allegation is that the authorisation to use force given by the Security Council in Resolution 678 cannot be relied on in 2003. That is perhaps the principle argument that is raised. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made it today.
	However, the view that the authorisation in Resolution 678 is capable of being revived by a material breach by Iraq of the ceasefire conditions imposed in Resolution 687 is not new. That is supported by, first, previous practice of the Security Council. The coalition took military action against Iraq on the basis of revived authorisation from Resolution 678 on two previous occasions, in 1993 and 1998—under two different governments, Conservative and Labour—following determinations by the Security Council that Iraq was in violation of its obligations.
	Secondly, it is supported by statements made by the United Nations Secretary-General. Following the 1993 action, the then UN Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, said:
	"The raid yesterday, and the forces which carried out the raid, have received a mandate from the Security Council, according to Resolution 678, and the cause of the raid was the violation by Iraq of Resolution 687 concerning the ceasefire. So, as Secretary-General of the United Nations, I can say that this action was taken and conforms to the resolutions of the Security Council and conforms to the Charter of the United Nations".
	He repeated that view in his introduction to The United Nations and the Iraq-Kuwait Conflict 1990–96, published by the United Nations in 1996. He stated that following the adoption of Resolution 687,
	"enforcement measures remained in effect, including . . . the Council's authorisation to Member States to use 'all necessary means' to uphold Iraqi compliance",
	with its obligations.
	Thirdly, that is supported by the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441, which I remind noble Lords was passed unanimously, 15 to nil, by every member of the Security Council, including Syria, makes explicit reference to the authorisation to use force in Resolution 678 and to the fact that the ceasefire was based on an acceptance by Iraq of the conditions set out in Resolution 687. This is a clear indication that it was understood by the members of the Security Council that a determination that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations would revive the authorisation to use force in Resolution 678.
	These points are not always remembered by those who take a contrary point of view.

Lord Roper: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord made reference to the fact that a material breach would provide an opportunity for further action, but if I remember rightly there was also discussion in the Security Council of the suggestion that there would have to be a determination by the Security Council that there had been such a material breach.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord is uncharacteristically wrong in his facts. That is because there was, first, a determination by the Security Council itself in Resolution 1441 unanimously that Iraq was in material breach. One sees that in the first operative paragraph of the resolution:
	"Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations".
	Secondly, and this is very important, it made a predetermination that if, after all these resolutions and after 12 years, Iraq did not now comply with its final opportunity, that would be a further material breach. Operational paragraph 4 decides that,
	"false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution of failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of this Resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations".

Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. Does he not agree that while what he argues seems absolutely logical in one context, there is a reasonable ground for other members of the United Nations Security Council to say, "Surely we have to agree that the situation is now right to take the action that was envisaged"? That is what the international dispute is about.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, if one examines the very important language used in Resolution 1441, one sees explicitly in operational paragraph 12 this and this only: that in the event that the matter came back to the Security Council which, as we all know, it did on a number of occasions, it was to meet to "consider the situation". That language was deliberate. It was not intended that it was necessary for the Security Council to take a further decision following a further material breach by Iraq. Several members of the council argued for this during the negotiation of 1441, but their proposals to amend the text to require that the council had to decide what action to take at that stage were not accepted.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords—

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I will give way but I am very conscious of the time. There are other important points I need to deal with and I invite the noble Lord to be as quick as he can.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I will be quick. Will the noble and learned Lord deal with my point that the Government were negotiating for authorisation of further force before resolution 1441 was passed? If they were seeking further authorisation, why was that necessary if his argument be correct?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it was not necessary. That is the point. What matters is the resolution that was ultimately passed then and there with the determination of an actual material breach, with a final opportunity given to Iraq and with a clear statement that a failure fully to comply or co-operate in any way would constitute a further material breach. There is no doubt—one can look at what was said by Dr Blix, and all the evidence in relation to it—and it was never contested otherwise, that Iraq failed to take that further final opportunity.

Lord Rea: My Lords, perhaps I may make a very brief point.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I am anxious to spend a moment or two on a third issue with which I must deal.
	My noble friend Lord Judd made the important point that this is not a lawyers' debate but a debate about people. He referred to the response to the difficult challenges that we face. I am grateful for what he said about the heavy responsibility the Government bear—which they do—to protect the citizens of this country against all kinds of threats, but that they should not be dealt with only by the use of force.
	Of course that is right. But it is important—and this debate provides the opportunity—to touch on the need for a wider international debate about the question of the use of force by states. It is an important area for discussion and we need to seek a political consensus at international level on the circumstances in which the Security Council should act under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.
	For the first 40 years of its existence the Security Council was constrained by Cold War political realities. A great deal has changed since then and the Security Council's practice has developed considerably. It has acted, for example, in relation to Somalia, eastern Zaire, East Timor, Sierra Leone and, most recently, Haiti.
	The Security Council does not authorise in every case and the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, was right to remind us of the situation in relation to Kosovo. That is why I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that there are only two circumstances in which force is justified. There is increasing acceptance of the view taken in 1999 that imminent humanitarian crises justify military intervention.
	My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made an important contribution to the debate in his Chicago speech in 1999 and he made a further important contribution to it in the Sedgefield speech on 5 March. We welcome the contributions that others have made to the debate—for example, the Canadian-sponsored International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty—and we very much welcome the establishment by the United Nations Secretary-General of a high-level panel—including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, of this House, although in a personal capacity—which is looking at how the United Nations can improve its response to the broad range of threats to international peace and security, including the circumstances in which the use of force is justified.
	I am afraid that I am prevented from dealing at any length with the points made by my noble friend Lord Mitchell and the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. I simply say this. The Government deplore and have repeatedly condemned the terrorist atrocities committed against Israel and we recognise its right to defend itself against terrorism. But we also say that Israel must act in accordance with international law. That is what lies at the heart of the statements which have been made about the recent targeted killings.
	The tragic impact of suicide bombings has been all too clear. Israel is entitled to take steps to ensure its security and safeguard itself against terrorism, but that conflict cannot be solved by military means alone. Ultimately, Israel's security can be achieved only through a just and lasting settlement negotiated between the parties. The road map offers the best opportunity for peace and we now look for both sides to move forward in implementing its obligations.
	I am here to answer for the United Kingdom Government, not for anyone else's view. That would be extending my brief a little too far. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to what the United States has said; I am not here to answer for it. If one looks at the document, one sees much more than simply a statement about unilateralism.
	I conclude with the very wise words of Kofi Annan, who said last September,
	"it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable".

Lord Rea: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I make the point that I tried to interject while he was in the midst of making an important point? Why was it not possible to allow the United Nations Security Council inspector, Hans Blix, to determine whether there had been a material breach of Resolution 1441? Instead, why was there an attack while he was still only half way through his work?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord's question. If one looks at what Dr Blix said in his reports to the Security Council on 27 January, 14 and 20 February and 6 March, when he issued a 173-page paper detailing unresolved issues, one sees that he did answer that question. His document catalogued Iraqi evasion, deceit, and the feigning of co-operation while in reality pursuing a cynical policy of concealment. Twenty-nine instances of Iraqi failure provide credible evidence and there were at least 17 occasions when inspectors uncovered evidence that contradicted the official Iraqi account. That utterly supports the view, which nobody contested, that Iraq had failed to take the opportunity which the Security Council unanimously had given it.

House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.